1964-06-25

Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the house and the country because of a statement issued by the Prime Minister this morning over the C.B.C. with regard to legislative matters to be brought before this house, and because of a presentation that was made in a non-political fashion to the members of parliament shortly before the opening of the house today.
The Prime Minister, I believe, suggested that a measure covering student loans would be introduced prior to a summer recess. I bring this question forward because of its importance. If the Prime Minister is prepared to present this legislation to the house, we will offer our co-operation in its passage immediately.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to table copies of the letters to which I made reference in my statement in the house yesterday about the television program.



DECISION ON SHOWING OF FILM ON PRIME MINISTER

Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I have received the decision made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the film entitled "Mr. Pearson" and I should like to communicate it to the house. It is as follows:
The directors of the corporation at their annual meeting have carefully reviewed those aspects of the rejected television film "Mr. Pearson" which are directly its concern:
(1)	The broadcasting or professional decision not to show the film, and
(2)	Whether compelling factors now exist which would outweigh the corporation's operational standards and judgment.
The corporation has made its decision on the basis of the full responsibility in programming matters delegated to it by parliament. There are three basic elements in the decision:
(1)	The film remains unacceptable for showing on the basis of broadcast standards.
(2)	The corporation is satisfied there has been no political interference.
(3)	Though an interest in the film has been stimulated in segments of the public, nevertheless the corporation does not judge the broadcasting of the film to be warranted.
The corporation's decision is not to show the film or parts thereof.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with the
approach of the commonwealth prime ministers' conference I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to the members of the house to present, in general, their views regarding commonwealth matters and such questions as in the ordinary run of things would come before that conference. I know that on previous occasions this has been done, and I think it is most beneficial for the Prime Minister to have the general consensus of the views of the house respecting those matters that will be discussed.
Second, in that connection would the Prime Minister say whether the government of Canada would support the setting up of a committee or commission, representative of commonwealth countries, to give consideration to the serious situation that prevails today in British Guiana, a matter that naturally is not one for the United Nations, as it is distinctly an internal one, but is of great importance to the commonwealth?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, regarding the first suggestion made by my right hon. friend, I shall be glad to give consideration to that possibility. Regarding the second suggestion about a commonwealth committee being set up to consider such questions as British Guiana, I

Inquiries of the Ministry think we would have to reserve our opinion until the forthcoming conference has met and we have ascertained the views of the United Kingdom government, which is responsible for the administration of that colony.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I ask whether any discussions have been going on between the United Kingdom government and the government of Canada and other governments within the commonwealth in connection with British Guiana. I am not asking for particulars. I realize these communications are confidential, but would the Prime Minister be able to say whether such a suggestion has been placed before him or had received any consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course there have been messages received from the United Kingdom government about conditions in British Guiana which, as my hon. friend knows, is customary in matters of this kind in regard to commonwealth exchanges. To my knowledge no specific request has come in from the United Kingdom government to consider any machinery of the kind suggested by my right hon. friend, but one may have come in within the last day or two to the Department of External Affairs. If so it has not been brought to my attention yet, but I shall look into the matter.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the newly announced policy of the United States with respect to Viet Nam and the situation in Southeast Asia, and the fact that this may result in a confrontation with mainland China, will the Canadian ministers who are in Washington today inform the United States government that Canada dissociates itself from this policy and that we will accept no responsibility for any repercussions which may follow such a policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ministers in Washington today will undoubtedly be receiving reports from the United States government on this subject which is of such immediate interest to all countries. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be in a position, perhaps tomorrow morning,

to report on these discussions generally. The Canadian government has no commitment to Viet Nam except that of our membership in the United Nations, and we would wish to discharge our obligations in that regard to Viet Nam or any other country in the light of our obligations under the charter only.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the Prime Minister give the house his assurance that the Canadian ministers in Washington have been instructed not to make any commitment on behalf of Canada with respect to either South Viet Nam or any of the countries in southeast Asia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the Canadian delegation will make it quite clear that we are not extending our commitments in that area beyond those we have undertaken as a member of the United Nations.



MALAYSIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent breakdown in talks between President Sukarno of Indonesia and Premier Abdul Rahman of Malaysia, and in view of today's announcement by Deputy Premier Mikoyan in Indonesia that Russia will be supporting Indonesia with military equipment, would the government consider giving an answer to the call of the premier of Indonesia for commonwealth help to this critical area of the commonwealth?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have had the advantage of exchanges of views with the premier of Malaysia, who has put the point of view of his government to us, and we are hoping that he will be paying a visit to Canada in July. At that time we shall be able to discuss all these questions with him personally.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRESENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of press reports at noon today that the United Kingdom Cyprus contingent is to be cut ip half, will the Prime Minister request the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make a statement to the house on the Cyprus

Inquiries of the Ministry
situation so that all of us may be brought I wish to ask the leader of the official oppo-up to date as to what is going on in Cyprus sition (Mr. Diefenbaker) if it is true he stated and, in particular, as to how the usefulness last night that general elections could be and effectiveness of the United Nations force called in Canada any day now and if he will be affected by the withdrawal of more intends to see His Excellency the Governor than 1,000 United Kingdom troops?	General about that matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to bring the house up to date on this matter. Within the last 24 hours he has had the advantage of a talk in New York with the president of Turkey. In the light of that talk, in the light of any discussions he may be having in Washington, and also in view of the reports which have been received from London, I agree that it would be proper to make a statement at the earliest possible date.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the change in United Kingdom policy and its effect on the United Nations Cyprus force, is the government reassessing Canada's role in Cyprus or considering making any change in our commitment to the United Nations in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are not contemplating any change at the moment in our contribution to this force.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. friend for Oxford, that Canada does not at the present time intend to extend its commitment in Cyprus, has the government of Canada received a request for additional staff officers and headquarters troops in the event that Britain withdraws her forces in this particular sector, as was suggested in the British press last week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that matter. There may have been a request for a few additional staff officers in certain contingents, but 1 am not sure. I shall look into the matter right away.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY OPPOSITION LEADER RESPECTING ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, under standing order No. 39 we are allowed to direct questions to ordinary members about a public matter connected with the business of the house and in which some members may be concerned, and accordingly,


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the hon. member that his question is out of order.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the deep unrest among Quebec farmers, which will find a dramatic outlet tomorrow when 10,000 farmers march on the parliament of Quebec, would the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to reconsider his decision not to appoint a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The intentions of the government have been made known in this regard, and it is hoped that we shall be able shortly to bring in legislation which will provide for the appointment of a minister of forestry and rural development, but not for a special minister for eastern agriculture.


Léon Balcer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister intend to appoint a minister who will at least be able to get on well with the Quebec minister of agriculture?


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister delegate a federal minister to Quebec tomorrow as an observer, to attend the farmers' march on the parliament of the province of Quebec, since that might give him some ideas about increasing the income of the eastern farmer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The last two questions are hardly serious.

Inquiries of the Ministry



SUBSIDY ON GRAIN TRANSPORTED BY TRUCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Forestry.
Following the decision which we took yesterday to refer to the committee on agriculture and colonization the controversial problem of the cost of feed grain in eastern Canada, is the minister in a position to tell us whether he will await the result of the study made by that committee on the matter before announcing whether he intends to subsidize the shipping of grain by rail as well as by truck?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will be necessary to wait until the final report of the committee of agriculture on feed grain is received to take immediately appropriate steps in order to assist the transportation of feed grain by truck in certain areas of eastern Canada.


Marcel Lessard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to tell us when he intends to announce this new policy to provide assistance to the transportation of feed grain by truck?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that the United States government will require a warning on all cigarette packages and cartons after January 1, 1965 stating that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health and may cause death from cancer, and that a similar warning will be required in all cigarette advertising in the United States after July 1, 1965?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My attention has been drawn to this, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize the importance of this question, but is it so urgent and so pressing that it requires an immediate answer? I do not think so. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is important whether the minister does know and can take the necessary action.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could raise the same subject but with more currency, which might possibly enable it to pass as a question. I wonder whether, in view of the United States government's decision as pointed out by the previous speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare is already considering some similar recommendation to the Canadian government.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, 1 have of course noticed in the press and have had brought to my attention the newspaper articles regarding the United States action. I should like to say to the house and my hon. friends that the advisory committee set up by the government after the conference on smoking and health last fall has been looking into the question. It appears to be as much a question of whether the federal government can do it as it is whether to do it. At the moment the whole matter is under very active consideration by the advisory committee. When they make a report to me as to action or no action, it will be necessary to ascertain whether the federal government can take such action, and then to decide whether the federal government wishes to do so. I should like to say to my hon. friends, both of whom have shown a great interest in this matter, which I appreciate, that when government policy is decided it will be announced in the house.



FLUORIDATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, and I should like to say to him that I am not asking it facetiously but most sincerely. It is most timely inasmuch as the Canadian Dental Association is now meeting in Edmonton. In view of the statement by the royal commission on health services that wherever fluoridation has been adopted the saving in dental costs has been impressive and the reduction in human suffering equally great, and in view of the statement already made by the department of health, would the Prime Minister express his endorsation of this vital public health measure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It strikes me that in its form the question is out of order.


Joseph Slogan: I have a question for the Prime Minister. When the federal-provincial conference on health services takes place, will the Prime Minister give consideration to sharing in the costs, with the provinces, of the installation of fluoridation equipment?


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



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour but in his absence I would put it to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister draw to the attention of the trustees the present activities of Mr. Cunningham, a henchman of Hal Banks, and the contributions he may be making to further shipping strikes on the seaway and the west coast?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring that matter to the attention of the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, but in view of the fact that he is not here 1 should like to direct it either to the acting minister or to the Prime Minister because the question is of such pressing importance that any delay could cause a tie-up in shipping on the Pacific coast.
Has the attention of the government been drawn to the situation surrounding the T.S.S. Alaska, a Liberian ship which is operated by United States owners who have been put under pressure by the S.I.U. to place all masters, mates and engineers under the control of the S.I.U.? This company has been threatened by Mr. Paul Hall of the S.I.U. in the United States that he will give them what he calls a "hard time" unless licensed personnel jobs are given to the S.I.U. This is causing picketing and a good deal of disturbance on the Pacific coast.
First, has this situation been drawn to the attention of the government? Second, is the board of maritime trustees aware of the situation and has this action been taken with their co-operation and consent? If not, what action do they intend to take regarding this matter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any personal knowledge of this matter, but I shall see that it is taken up with the Department of Labour at once and whatever action is taken will be made known to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I received a wire similar to that received by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Would the Prime Minister personally look into this matter because of the serious situation in which Mr. Hall of the S.I.U. is apparently adopting arrogant and overbearing tactics in order to pressure those named by the hon. gentleman to join the
S.I.U.? This is something that I think should be brought to the attention of the trustees immediately. It involves serious repercussions on the west coast, and there is a danger of them spreading. I ask the Prime Minister whether he personally will get in touch with the trustees today because this situation, uncontrolled or unmet by them immediately, can only lead to serious results.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to join with the Acting Minister of Labour in dealing with this matter at once.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In answer to a question put by me yesterday the Minister of Labour indicated to the house that he was well aware of and was in touch with the situation. Now we are informed by the Prime Minister that the matter is going to be brought to his attention. Where do we stand on this particular matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, because this matter most vitally concerns the people of my riding and I have spent over half an hour on the telephone talking with those concerned. When the Prime Minister is making his investigation will he make inquiries whether this most serious action in Vancouver, so far as the shipping industry in concerned, was not taken under the authority of the trustees; and if not, how the situation could possibly develop without their knowledge or authority? Would the Prime Minister look into that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may be
allowed to raise a point of order, a moment

Inquiries of the Ministry ago the hon. member for Cape Breton South asked a question. I do not think Your Honour heard the question he asked. This is a very important matter, and he wanted to know why it was that on another occasion it was stated that the matter was being considered but now the Prime Minister apparently has no information or knowledge of it.


Mr. Speaker:: There must be a misunderstanding. I thought I heard only two statements and no question; that was why I interrupted. If the hon. member has a question perhaps he might put it now.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will rephrase my question. How is it that the Minister of Labour, in answer to a question by me on this particular matter yesterday, informed the house that he was fully aware of and in complete touch with the situation on the west coast? I put a question to him about S.I.U. interference with shipping with engineers from Montreal replacing engineers on the west coast. The Minister of Labour said he was fully aware of the situation, but now we have the acting minister and the Prime Minister rising in their places and saying that they will make the Minister of Labour aware of the situation, in spite of the fact that yesterday he claimed he was fully in touch with it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This seems to be a different question from that brought up by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question is based on the words we heard from him this morning on the C.B.C. with regard to the business for the balance of this part of the session. I believe he indicated that the matters to be dealt with were the flag, the Canada pension plan, the family allowance measure and the student loan legislation. Is this the government's program between now and the recess, and will arrangements for parliamentary business be made so that these matters will be got through, particularly the family allowance and the student loan legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned these as matters which should be dealt with before the par-

liamentary recess. No particular significance is to be attached to the order, nor was this list exclusive. I hope to make a statement on this matter next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that three of these matters are not yet on the order paper-two are not there at all and one is not in its final form-will they be put on the order paper soon? I refer to the student loans and family allowance legislation and the latest version of the Canada pension plan.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to put the youth allowance legislation on the order paper today or tomorrow.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Prime Minister which arises out of an answer he gave a few minutes ago concerning the youth allowance bill which he said was to be put on the order paper tomorrow, I believe. Would he also consider putting on the order paper the measure covering loans to university students, so this noncontentious matter can be dealt with and students wishing to attend university in the fall may be assured of adequate finances?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The resolution on that matter will be on the order paper in good time to deal with it. I know how important it is.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking a question of the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry. It arises out of questions asked yesterday by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm with respect to tariff concessions offered to the French firms Peugeot and Renault if they chose to open plants in Quebec. The answer generally was that government policy would not be announced; and as far as the Minister of Industry was concerned he stated that he had not received any communication from those companies.
I ask the Prime Minister this question. Has the government of Canada communicated with the minister of trade in the province of Quebec outlining the government's position with respect to these tariff concessions in the event that the manufacture of automobiles

by these companies commences in the province of Quebec? That information appears in the press, and parliament has not had it.
Second, is it a fact that officials of the firms in question have been meeting with federal officials within recent weeks in this connection?
Finally, has the ambassador of France been in consultation with officials of the Department of Industry or Department of Finance in this matter? I want to point out immediately, sir, that yesterday the answer was nebulous and uncertain. Today's press contains information which parliament has not had. Therefore I am asking the Prime Minister particularly to state what policy has been determined upon in this connection by the government, for parliament has the right to know.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that question as notice and give an answer tomorrow.



SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice as leader of the Liberal members from Quebec?
Considering that the province of Quebec has 38 per cent of all the unemployed in Canada and the decrease in the building industry in this country, does the minister intend to put some pressure on the government to remove the 11 per cent tax on building materials, so as to stimulate the Canadian economy and promote building in Canada? [Text]
The minister refuses to take his responsibility on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question has been asked several times.



REPORTED WITHDRAWAL OF EXPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which was sent to his office shortly before noon. Has the Canadian wheat board announced that export assistance to the Canadian flour milling industry in the amount of
Inquiries of the Ministry 6| cents per bushel is being withdrawn? If so, can the minister tell us why this action is being taken at this time?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this assistance, as the hon. gentleman described it, on the part of the Canadian wheat board is not a government subsidy. It concerns the price at which wheat is sold to the mills by the Canadian wheat board. As hon. members are aware, under the Canadian Wheat Board Act the Canadian wheat board is solely responsible for pricing, whether for the domestic or the export market, and does not ordinarily explain the changes which are made in these prices from time to time. However, I have taken notice of the hon. gentleman's question and will discuss it with the board to determine whether it feels that an explanation would be in the interests of the farmers, to whom the board is ultimately accountable.


Mr. Eldon Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, somewhat related to a question I was going to raise a few minutes ago. It is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As we are nearing the end of the crop year I was wondering whether the minister could tell us today, or later if he has not the information with him, whether the full commitment under the contract between Russia and Canada as to deliveries of grain has been completed to this stage and, if so, will there now be open quotas for the farmers of western Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition the other day explained that deliveries under the Russian wheat contract are ahead of schedule. The Russians are very happy, and I fully expect we will fulfil that contract well ahead of time. If we are still here around the end of July and I have an opportunity, I will bring the house up to date as to the position.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, in his capacity of house leader.
Can the hon. gentleman assure the house that the examination of resolution 44B, to

Inquiries of the Ministry adopt a second flag, the union jack, will be immediately followed by that of resolution 44A concerning the three-leaved flag?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this matter comes under the organization of the business of the house and will be announced as the business of the house progresses.



USE OF PROPOSED DESIGN IN ST. JEAN BAPTISTE PARADE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Did the right hon. gentleman have the occasion to watch on television yesterday the St. John the Baptist parade and, if so, has he noticed that the tri-leaf flag was leading the parade and has favourably impressed all Montrealers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly impressed me.


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: I merely wished to point out to the Prime Minister that the tri-leaf flag was carried by the cadets of Shawinigan South and was a gift from the member for St. Maurice-Lafleche.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like also to point out that the finest float of the parade, according to the press, came from the riding of Lapointe and was presented by the aluminum company of Arvida.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Is it the Prime Minister's intention to follow up the recent request made by Gaspe north chamber of commerce to the effect that the government should reconsider 
its position and carry out the construction of the Matane-Ste Anne des Monts railway and also extend by one year the expiry date of the bill, in order to help the Gaspe economy?


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


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
At the time the former government was in power a bill was passed. This bill, which had been approved by all members, with the exception of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), provided for the building of a railway in the Gaspe peninsula. The present government cancelled that project, which is an infringement of the rights of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -the way it is done in Soviet Russia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is not satisfied with my judgment he has the privilege of raising the matter at ten o'clock.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY    REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON TOLLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government made a decision on the tolls on the seaway? When can we expect a formal statement in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport and ask him to make a statement at the earliest possible date.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a supplementary question. Can we be assured the statement will be made in the house before July 1, so we will not have to read about the decision in United States newspapers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will try to insure that the statement is made first in the house.



BRITISH COLUMBIA AND YUKON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the minis-

ter of northern affairs and referred him to a question I had previously asked of the Prime Minister. The minister undertook to provide me with an answer today. I see he is not in the house but perhaps his parliamentary secretary, who has been trying to catch your eye, might be able to catch the eye of the Chair now so I might have an answer.


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his anticipated co-operation. I might say that the question put to the Prime Minister by the hon. member last Monday had to do with whether any financial assistance has been or will be given to the government of the Yukon. When I was up in the Yukon ten days ago I put a question to Commissioner Gordon Cameron, and he assured me at that time that the damage was still within the resources of the territorial government, and to this date we have received no request from the Yukon for assistance.
I might say with respect to flood damage, Mr. Speaker, that we have been advised by telegram from the commissioner's office as late as yesterday evening that the Yukon and Klondike river levels at Dawson city have receded; that the damage still remaining is some flooding in the Anglican hostel and hospital; that sewer lines are being pumped out, and when the flood waters are completely receded the area will be disinfected. At Mayo, as the hon. member knows, the flood waters have again receded and the river is in its normal channel.


Mr. G. L. Chatterfon (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources can his parliamentary secretary answer the question I put to the Prime Minister on Monday last with regard to the dikes on the Fraser river?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there was a breach in the dikes, as the hon. member knows, but the flood level of the Fraser is now down a foot from its peak. Although I do not have the latest report, I would hope that conditions are less critical than they were when the hon. member posed his question.
25. 1964	4701
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION IN EASTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Complon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In view of the possibility that Russia may be buying less wheat from Canada, could the minister inform us whether extra elevators will be built in eastern Canada so that wheat orders may be delivered quickly and our high standard in foreign trade may be maintained?


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



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusie Choqueiie (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Following an urgent message I have received from St. Jean Deschaillons, in the riding of Lotbiniere, I would like to know whether the minister is aware of the serious landslide which occurred in that community and whether he intends to take the necessary remedial steps, considering the seriousness of the situation?
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing that situation to my attention. I shall advise my officials immediately so that they may see to it without delay.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State in connection with the announcement of the decision of the C.B.C. this morning. Can the Secretary of State inform the house whether he is aware of any resignations that have taken place from the C.B.C. public affairs staff and whether any further resignations are anticipated, if indeed there have been

Interim Supply
resignations? If he cannot answer today, will he ascertain what the situation is and inform the house tomorrow morning?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any resignations.


Erik Nielsen: Will the Secretary of State make inquiries and inform the house tomorrow morning?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Has the minister answered the communication he received from the Georgian bay development association dated June 16, 1964 with regard to the current low water levels in the lake Huron and Georgian bay area?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make inquiries about that.


Edison John Clayton Loney: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As this communication refers to a letter to the Prime Minister dated April 28 and unanswered as of June 16, will the minister give this matter immediate consideration?


John Napier Turner: Since he is absent, I will certainly draw it to his attention.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 24, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Batten in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $469,308,421.26, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $329,299,209.25;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 5, privy council item 25 (schedule A) of the main estimates, $2,259,116.67;
(c)	four twelfths of the total of all of the items in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $134,897,245.34;

(d)	an additional seven twelfths of the amount of loans, investments and advances item L37a (schedule B) of the supplementary estimates (A), $2,625,000.00;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of loans, investments and advances item L12a (schedule C), of the supplementary estimates (A), $227,850,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
["Order. The hour assigned for the consideration of private members' business has expired."]
Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, there was
something rather grotesque in the concentration of the house yesterday upon the Pearson film. I think it has been made even more grotesque by the decision of the C.B.C. today. I do not intend to carry on the discussion, but I want to place some questions before the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that this was his first opportunity to speak in full on this matter. I think he started well, but in so far as the fulsomeness of the explanation was concerned, he began to run out well before the end of his speech.
I do not believe we will have a full explanation. I would predict, as a result of the repercussions within the structure of the C.B.C. that we have not heard the end of this. As a matter of fact it begins to look very much as though we have almost a duplicate of the "Preview Commentary" situation of a few years ago brewing. I hope if this should be the case we will have the matter referred to a committee rather more quickly than was the case at that time.
I wanted to raise this point with the Prime Minister. He indicated that there were two reasons why the film was screened for him and other members of his staff. One was the question, which I think we will all accept, of the secrecy of matters in relation to the cabinet and the Prime Minister's office. The other was the question of something that you may call good taste, that was the question of the personal selection that was involved in the television production.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this question. At the first showing did he have with him a professor from York University by the name of William Kilboum? I raise this question because I understand Professor Kilboum was with him. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. As well as being a supporter of the Prime Minister he is considered somewhat of an authority on television, on the standards of television performance. I can quite understand that it might have been completely informal that Professor Kilboum wound up seeing this particular film. I happen to know-the Prime Minister may wonder

where I got the information, but I got it directly-that Professor Kilbourn had an opinion after seeing this film. He had an opinion upon its worth, not in connection with secrecy or the Prime Minister's personal taste but on the basis of whether it was good television and a good projection of the subject.
I think this is something that runs through the whole matter. Many members of the house know that the national director of the Liberal party happens to be a friend of mine of long standing. I want to raise the issue that he was included also in the screenings that were given of this film. I ask the Prime Minister, how does this square with the two matters, the question of personal taste and the question of secrecy? I suggest to the Prime Minister that yesterday in his speech when he got toward the end he missed out entirely on the explanation for all the screenings.
I can only assume from his performance yesterday that he has what I can only call in order to get around the need for a name, the man from Prince Albert syndrome. He is obsessed, in some way, with the position and attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. It was revealed in his speech yesterday. For some reason this does not allow him to be completely open and direct about the details in connection with this particular film.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Put it in your column.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Prime Minister has made a number of references to my column and television show. I appreciate these very much, but I am speaking here as a parliamentarian very closely watching this particular situation develop, and in connection with this film I want to ask the Prime Minister if he can see the possibilities in this light.
For some reason he withdrew his own personal judgment in connection with the matter some time before that final screening attended by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For some reason the Prime Minister decided that he would leave the judgment to these colleagues of his and to those associates of his within his own office. I do not know why he did this, but I would ask him whether he can tell me in all candidness that these gentlemen did not form a judgment upon the merit of the film as it affected him as Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party, and whether that judgment-I am not saying to the Prime Minister's knowledge it was communicated deliberately- whether he really believes that judgment made by that group or those associated with
Interim Supply
him was not given to Reeves Haggan, the director of public affairs of the C.B.C.
I would like to point out to the Prime Minister that his explanation yesterday began to run out of detail just where the Dennis Braithwaite descriptions of the incident began to get to grips with what I think are some very important things. I just want to take this extract from the second column and draw it to the Prime Minister's attention:
In about half an hour,
-this is after the screening-
Mr. Ballentine and Mr. Haggan were called to Mr. O'Hagan's office, where they were told that everyone thought highly of the film. Tom Kent called it brilliant. However, it must be understood that there was some concern about it from a publicity and political point of view.
Mr. Haggan said he thought it was sympathetic to the Prime Minister.
In other words Mr. Haggan, the director of public affairs, was arguing that the film should be accepted, that there should be some kind of seal of approval.
There is only one thing I could draw from this kind of group passing approval on it, and I am suggesting we have not had a clear explanation from the Prime Minister as to whether the judgment of this group, on this question of publicity from a political point of view, was not given to Mr. Haggan; and I would suggest, as I did two days ago, that Mr. Haggan as a good executive and good employee of the C.B.C. almost certainly let this opinion be known to his senior officials. I think this is the only explanation one can get of just what transpired, and I think the Prime Minister should tell us whether he does not believe this is possible, that this is likely.
We are prepared to accept the Prime Minister's statement that he was not guilty of political interference, but surely in the light of the two points he was trying to bring out all through yesterday's debate that he felt he had the right-and indeed he behaved as if he had the right, and he delegated the right to his associates-to judge the film on the question of his personal tastes and personal affairs and on the whole question of whether it was secret or not, he must realize that this spreads out and makes possible the judging of that film on the basis of what Mr. Braithwaite has called the publicity and political points of view.
I do not know whether we are going to get a key answer but I suggest that the Prime Minister-I shall not say would be well advised because that is presumptuous- might take it up with his staff and see

Interim Supply
whether it was not accurate that Mr. Haggan, the senior man in C.B.C. relations respecting this film, was aware ol the views on the part of the Prime Minister's associates to whom he delegated or apparently delegated the judgment, that they felt the film would be a poor one to show because of the publicity and political problems inherent in it.
The last point I want to make in connection with the Pearson film concerns the decision that the C.B.C. has taken not to show it. They have the right to make that decision, but I think it is a wrong one on two counts. Having seen the film I cannot accept that it is bad technically, that it is below normal C.B.C. standards. To my mind it was well above the C.B.C. technical standards, but that is my personal opinion.
I know there will continue to be an interest in this film. I would not like to suggest that the house should get into the position of asking the C.B.C. to go any further so far as putting it on television is concerned, but I certainly think that in the minds of almost all members of the house the whole question will not be at rest until they have an opportunity to view the film. I would like to suggest that some of us should make an arrangement to form a film society, because Mr. Braithwaite has prints, and I suggest that the Prime Minister would do very well, in the light of these people's comments, if he would become the honourary patron of the House of Commons film society. I am suggesting this with a certain amount of humour, but I hope we actually form a society so that we can see the film. I want to see it shown to back up what I have said on the record, that it is a brilliant film, technically excellent, and should be shown to the Canadian people; and I want my associates in the house, not only my associates over here but also on the other side, to form their judgment.
There is one other matter I want to touch on very briefly, a matter that may in a sense be related to this. This party I represent is very disappointed over the failure of the house to come up with some limitation upon debate, some formal arrangement. It is not proper for me to make any comments on the operations of a committee of the house, a committee that is presently sitting, but we are disappointed that that committee has not brought forward recommendations so we could have a means of negotiating limitation of debate.
On this point I would express some views to the official opposition. If it considers fairly,

it will agree that minor parties in the house have more to lose from a limitation upon debate than the official opposition itself. The Leader of the Opposition has unlimited time to speak. He has the first opportunity to speak, and in any kind of ratio we have worked out in recent years the official opposition of the day, whether the Liberal party in opposition or the Conservative party in opposition, has done well-I will not say unfairly well, but fairly well-in the ratio of speakers. I put it to the official opposition that if anything the people who should worry about a restriction and time limit on debate, particularly on legislation, are the members of our party and our colleagues to our left.
I would ask the official opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, in appraising this matter which I think is the most vital before parliament in so far as parliament's own good health is concerned, that they look more favourably than they have so far on this question of limiting debate. I think it is absolutely essential if we are going to resurrect the health and I think the life, if you want, of an institution that is not very favourably situated at the present time. Even if we do not think so, many people out in the country feel this is so.
We would like to close our remarks-and I say "we" because I am speaking for my colleagues-by putting to the Prime Minister that we feel he has not taken a strong hand in leading discussions and in presenting possibilities in connection with the matter of limitations upon debate. We can understand the fear which exists in the mind of any alert politician with regard to the whole question of closure in the light of what happened in 1956 and thereafter, but I should like to point out to the right hon. gentleman how much the climate and attitude have changed since then. I remember in 1957 arguing with my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we needed limitation of debate negotiated in the same way as in the British parliament. He disagreed very strongly with me. He felt this was really a denial of what we were setting out to do. I think it will be agreed that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has changed his mind. He now feels as I do on this question, which is perhaps the most vital of all the points to be considered in connection with the reform of parliament.
I suggest that the Prime Minister has never, except in the loosest or vaguest way, put forward anything in the nature of a formula or plan by which we could move toward this

objective. He is probably saying "Why should I get involved in something like that?"


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have done so. We set up a committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: When has the Prime Minister ever put forward publicly and in this house an effective way of doing it? I have not seen it or heard of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to answer that question now. I put forward four proposals to expedite and make more effective parliamentary procedure when we were in opposition in the last parliament. I put those four proposals forward after we formed the government. I advanced a proposal to set up a committee to look into parliamentary procedure. We put a cabinet minister to sit on that committee with instructions that he should support every proposal which would expedite and make more effective the business of this house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, in our opinion that has not been enough, and I will tell the right hon. gentleman one of the reasons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You blocked every motion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is the key. What we need in this problem is good faith.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We need good faith in connection with this matter and the Prime Minister, as the senior person in this house, has not been able to engender that good faith.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quite right.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I say this is a responsibility which rests upon him. It is not enough for him to say he has put forward four proposals. If this parliament wishes to achieve these objectives, something more aggressive has to be done and, I suggest, something much more friendly than the Prime Minister has come forward with as yet.
I should also like to suggest something further. If we are to get over these limitations and if we cannot get co-operation after a fair effort, then another responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister; that is to begin to consider other means by which the results can be achieved.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quite right. Put it on the order paper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: You extend the hours of sitting. I remember I myself once had the honour of having a motion accepted in this house to
Interim Supply
extend the hours of sitting, and the right hon. gentleman will remember what happened as a result. We just got the longest Hansard in history, and I do not think we got out of here any sooner. I am wondering whether the same thing is likely to happen as far this motion is concerned.
My proposition on behalf of this party is twofold. First, we want more co-operation from the Prime Minister in working on this problem, and if no solution is apparent in the next few weeks we think the Prime Minister then has to begin to consider the other steps -and I think they are obvious; I think we have a tradition in this regard-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the hon. member tell us what they are?


Douglas Mason Fisher: They have existed since the time of the debate on the naval bill before the first world war.


John George Diefenbaker: Bring in closure?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not speaking for all of us now.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre "You are not speaking for all of us now".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have a split, eh?


John George Diefenbaker: Can they settle their dispute between them before they tell us what the policy is?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The point here is that I am not taking it upon myself or upon my colleagues to set out a policy. I am suggesting that if the Prime Minister, who has the power, wants to achieve the legislative program he talks about there is an ultimate responsibility upon him-


An hon. Member:: That is not very friendly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: An hon. gentleman says it would not be very friendly, but that is the challenge to the Prime Minister. It is he who has undertaken to get through this legislative program. It is not moving very well. He is having a great time blaming everybody else, and I suggest that if he cannot obtain the kind of co-operation which results from negotiation on the basis of good faith then he has to consider other means, whether friendly or not, of achieving his purpose-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The very reaction one gets in connection with this subject indicates the timidity in the thinking of hon. members over there. It is not the responsibility of members of the opposition to suggest the

Interim Supply
introduction of closure, but I say it is about time this government began to think about doing something like that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let us put it this way.


Mr. Herridge:: I object. I object.


John George Diefenbaker: How about a caucus?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Obviously I have not been exact in my phrasing. I want to make it very clear that there is a responsibility vested in the Prime Minister to get the business through this house. The Prime Minister has been having a fine time blaming everyone else for the slowness with which we have proceeded. I should like to suggest that if he cannot achieve the reforms which many of us feel are needed, he should consider those other responsibilities which rest upon him.


Some hon. Members:: What?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have already indicated what those other measures are. Never mind. I am very sorry if my colleagues fear that I was advocating closure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, let us consider the other possibility. What is this other possibility? It is the dissolution of this parliament and the holding of an election. Those are the three possibilities. I personally-this is a personal preference-would prefer the third one, because I am not convinced that this government or this Prime Minister are ever going to act with the kind of resolution which would enable them to use the other thing in this connection. I just want to leave this issue before the house as a whole, this being a debate in which anyone can discuss the matter, because I think it is very obvious that we are fighting back and forth without really achieving the legislative program we should.
Just before 2.30 today a number of us met with a group of Canadian students, members of the Canadian union of students who are anxious to have certain legislation put forward. I am not trying to read anything into their attitude, but it appeared to me they were cynical and sceptical to a marked extent about the capacity of this parliament to get on with this legislation and get it through in any reasonable time. I suggest that when an attitude of this sort is abroad in the country among such a group as this, the Prime Minister should begin seriously to consider means of getting down to the implementation

of measures such as the student loan bill, because it is evident that parliament is not handling these things very quickly.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he have in mind the statement made by the Minister of Finance on a national television broadcast, when he said "the Liberal party has the program and the platform and we think we have the leader"?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not think I need to comment on that. I believe the house knows my views.


Mr. Cashin:: I should like to take a few moments of the time of the committee in order to comment on the extraordinary situation I witnessed a few moments ago. I listened to an hon. member saying that he did not want to take very much upon himself. It seemed to me that he had taken a great deal upon himself in giving advice when he evidently did not even have the support of his own party.


Mr. Peters:: Everyone in this group has the support of the party.


Richard Joseph Cashin: In that particular group over there it would seem that if there is one man who does not have their support, it is their deputy leader. He talked about co-operation, and as I watched the reaction of his colleagues there seemed to be a great lack of coordination in their view. The point I would like to make is one that I think is valid, because the hon. member, unlike myself or my colleagues over here, has a great forum across this nation and he has pontificated on a great many subjects ad infinitum and occasionally ad nauseam.
I would just like to use this opportunity to draw particular attention to the contradictions and inadequacies of his remarks and to point to what I think is the most crucial point, namely that he is a man who is an independent member and does not really understand the problems of leadership. It is almost like-and I use this by way of analogy -a deaf mute sitting down lip reading a great oration. He can try to write about it, but unless you listen to an oration you cannot appreciate it. I think this represents an analogy to the hon. member for Port Arthur and shows the invalidity of his comments today.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, before saying a word or two concerning what the hon.

member for Port Arthur said I want to refer to an incident in the debate of yesterday when there was an incomplete reporting in Hansard of something that I said. I would like to put the record straight. The Prime Minister was talking about the difficulty of secret conversations appearing on the film, and as reported at page 4681 of Hansard I asked him this question, which is reported incompletely:
What secret conversations could you have, as a member of the privy council, in the presence of outsiders?
Because of the commotion in the house the latter part of the question was omitted. The Prime Minister replied that he would be very glad to answer that question and went on to say:
There were conversations in my office with cabinet ministers and we talked about public policy.
The point I was making was simply this, that the Prime Minister has admitted that members of the privy council, subject to the privy council oath, talked about matters of public policy in the presence of outsiders. Because he had done that, and because these conversations were recorded on tape, he wanted the right to excise them from the final version of the film, in the interests of security. In the interests of security these subjects should never have been talked about by members of the privy council in the presence of outsiders.
This surely is a gross dereliction of duty and responsibility, and I thought the Prime Minister failed to give an adequate explanation to the house yesterday with regard to that matter. I have been wondering since, what about these sections of the film that I understand have been cut out of the final production, which nobody is to see now? What about these sections which have recorded permanently secret conversations among members of the privy council on matters of public policy? Who has these sections of the film? In whose possession are they? Into whose hands will they fall?


Gilles Grégoire: The communists.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a very grave situation indeed, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder why the Prime Minister failed to give a more adequate explanation of those secret conversations of privy councillors. I wish to make that extension and correction of Hansard because I was inadequately reported yesterday. I do not propose pursuing that subject at the moment, although there is plenty one could say 20220-299
Interim Supply
with regard to the inadequate explanation of the Prime Minister.
I would like to talk for just a few minutes about what the hon. member for Port Arthur has said. He is in effect asking for the regimentation of this free institution. He wants everything put in a strait-jacket. He is in favour of curtailing freedom of speech. He is advocating closure. I say this because he referred to the naval debate of 1913. What was the purpose of referring to that unless he was asking the Prime Minister to put into effect what was done at that time? Then in 1956 we had another example of the curtailment of debate.
I am surprised that the deputy leader of the New Democratic party would be advocating the curtailment of speech in this house. No party has made better use of the freedom this institution provides than that party. The members of the New Democratic party time and time again have made use of the time of this house to present their views. In days gone by I well recall filibusters by members of that party week after week on subjects that were before this house, and there was no curtailment of the right of speech.


Erik Nielsen: Timiskaming and Skeena.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There was no closure applied. The hon. member for Port Arthur was talking about the public image of this institution. I do not know why members of parliament are trying to destroy the image of this institution by constantly condemning it in public. Let them make their statements here in the house-and I welcome the statement he made this morning-and not outside, so we can have a debate on the subject and can reply to such statements. But going outside this house, talking to high school students and other people and saying this is a sick parliament and that the institution has something faulty about it, does a great deal of harm. What are you doing? You are tearing down something that has centuries of tradition and prestige behind it. This is where the flame of freedom glows in Canada, right here in this chamber. There is no suppression of news here, except by those who do not want to give the full facts.
This is where every subject under the sun can be discussed. There is no curtailment of the important news of the country, as happened on the C.B.C. the other night when there was no mention of the fact that parliament was in session. This is the institution that preserves the liberties of the subject. Here is where you have freedom of speech,

Interim, Supply
and now the hon. member wants to curtail it. I ask him, for what purpose?


An hon. Member:: To get down to the business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He said "Let us operate the way they do in the House of Commons at Westminster, where debates are curtailed". Debates in the House of Commons at Westminster are shortened on some occasions by mutual agreement, just as has been done here for years and will continue, I hope, to be done here for years. There is no curtailment of debate in the British House of Commons except by the action of the Speaker, who has greater authority than the Speaker has been given in the Canadian House of Commons. He can, when it comes to the amendment of legislation, accept some amendments and reject others on his own authority. There are certain over-all time limits spent on some aspects of parliamentary business at Westminster, just as we have over-all time limits on the speech from the throne, the budget debate and on supply motions, and within those limits we attempt to operate.
The British House of Commons does not impose a time limit on legislation very often. It is only on average once in two years, on occasions when they have a very controversial piece of legislation in front of them and which they feel they must under the circumstances pass, that the government imposes an allocation of time and there is restriction of debate. This is normally undertaken only after reaching the committee of the whole house stage, after the house has spent several days debating the subject in question. It is not normal practice at all, and it is ridiculous for people to suggest that we should be doing here what they do there as if it was normal practice in the British House of Commons. It is not so at all.
The British house introduced allocation of time back in the days when the Irish nationalists were obstructing the parliament of Great Britain and brought things to a dead stop. Allocation of time was first imposed on two bills affecting Ireland introduced into the House of Commons by Balfour, who was secretary of state for Ireland. That is when they started, and that system of allocation of time has persisted in the British house and was used more frequently during that period and up to the 1930's than it has been since. It is not a popular measure in the British House of Commons. If you were to read the debates over recent years since the second world war, on occasions when alloca-

tion of time was applied with regard to legislation, every party in the house at one time or other, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, when forming the government applied an allocation of time order; and each one of those parties when in opposition has resisted the application of such an order. It is not in common use at all. They operate as we do-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would the hon. member permit me to intervene, because I think he and I are talking about two different things. I am talking about the agreement that is reached every week among the whips of the major parties in England by which definite limits are set on almost everything but the most controversial matters, when the time factor is left open.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did the hon. member mention the navy bill if he did not mean closure?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member is talking about two separate things.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have had constant communication in this house ever since I have been here with regard to limitation of debate by agreement, which time and time again happens. I can give countless examples of this. We did it yesterday in making a reference to the committee on agriculture.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was done by conference among the party house leaders.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask a question? When did the hon. member as Conservative house leader last attend the meeting of house leaders?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it was two months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: And he talks of constant communication between house leaders. Does the hon. member consider two months as constant communication?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. and somewhat inexperienced member of the house does not understand the operation of this institution.


Robert Norman Thompson: And I do not intend to, the way you carry it on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He never has. I do not know whether he will be given time to gain knowledge of this institution or whether his constituents will throw him out at the next election, but if he stays here long enough

perhaps he will get to understand how this institution operates. I have not attended these so-called meetings of the house leaders for two months, and for a very good reason which I gave at Easter time. I am not going to repeat it now, but if the hon. member wants it now I can tell him that it will involve some acrimonious debate.


Gilles Grégoire: You have never given the reason.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Since that time I have been in conversation and had meetings with the government house leader, and we have come to arrangements with regard to the business of this house.


Gilles Grégoire: You never gave your reasons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is surely the position of the house leader for the official opposition.
Now, why are meetings with house leaders held? For only two purposes. One meeting is held so that the government house leader can, as a courtesy gesture, outline to the people in the opposition his program for the week or for the month. That is one reason for those meetings. The second reason is when the government house leader wants to get some arrangement with or concession from the opposition. There are only two reasons for having meetings of house leaders, and I found when I was attending these meetings that I was facing not only the government house leader but three associates of his, sitting together and putting the entire blame on me if there was no agreement. I find it much better to deal directly.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege; as house leader of our party I say we were not associate house leaders of the government house leader. I resent that suggestion. But I would say that we were opposed to the continuous obstruction by the house leader of the opposition. He is the one who obstructs the house, and if he were not in the house I think we would move ahead with the business of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I offended the sensibilities of the person who takes up more time in this house than anyone else. I should put it in this way, that I gained the impression at those meetings that it was the government house leader and three associates who were attempting to put me in a false position. As I say, the hon. member for Red Deer has not 20220-299i
Interim Supply
an understanding of this institution, and I hope he gets one as time goes on.


Erik Nielsen: It will take a lot of time.


Robert Norman Thompson: It will not be according to your interpretation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Every session there is plenty of opportunity, and this opportunity is taken, to make arrangements among parties for the expediting of business of the house. That is done very frequently and is a normal and a useful arrangement which works reasonably satisfactorily. I am opposed to any limitation of time taken by members of this house, because every hon. member comes here in the same way; he is voted in by the inhabitants of a constituency-the electors-and every hon. member, no matter where he may sit in the house, deserves to be heard. Why should only the deputy leader of the New Democratic party be heard, or the hon. member for Red Deer, or the deputy leader of the Creditistes party? Why do not other hon. members have the chance to be heard? The hon. member for Port Arthur is suggesting limitation of debate so that he can be heard, and perhaps somebody else in his party too, and then all the rest are cut out. I do not approve of that at all. I think an opportunity should be given to others.
Let me just point out this fact. We talk of not getting the business of the country done. I am not at this moment criticizing the government house leader, but let me point out that as of last Friday we completed the 88th day of this session and have passed quite a number of pieces of legislation. They are now listed, of course, in orders of the day.
The hon. member for Port Arthur is wrong in placing the emphasis on legislation. As my colleague and seatmate has pointed out, on more than one occasion the business of the house, after the preliminaries are over, is to determine the amount of money which will be made available for the carrying on of the business of the country, and the question of supply overrides so many of these other matters. It is not just to deal with legislation that we are here; and the weakness of the present session is that we have had only six days on the main estimates. We should be settling the problem of supply first, and then proceeding with some of the legislative matters; or work out the two together so that we would deal with very important pieces of legislation and at the same time with the supply to be voted for the carrying on of the business of the country.

Interim Supply
This is the way people get a misconception of the house. We are constantly reading that parliament has not passed much legislation. Parliament is not assembled solely for the purpose of passing legislation. It is assembled in order to determine taxation and the granting of supply. If, incidentally, it passes legislation for the good of the country, that is a gain. But it is quite conceivable that parliament could assemble, go through the preliminaries, pass supply and do nothing else. That is quite conceivable, and it would be essential because the government cannot operate otherwise.
May I say that when people talk about this institution and suggest that sessions are getting too long and this, that and the other thing is happening, they have not searched the record. I wish they would. I have before me a table covering the sessions from 1952 to 1963. It shows the number of sitting days, when each session began and ended and the number of pieces of legislation passed, if that is something that is going to be insisted on. In addition to passing legislation, of course, supply was approved.
In the 1952 session there were 87 sitting days and 55 pieces of legislation were passed. The 1952-53 session lasted 108 days and 54 legislative items were passed. The 1953-54 session lasted 139 sitting days and 67 legislative items were passed. In 1955 the session lasted 140 days, with 60 items passed; in 1956 the session lasted 152 days, with 50 items passed; in 1957 it lasted 71 days, with
39	items passed. The 1957-58 session lasted 78 days and 30 items were passed. The 1958 session took 93 sitting days and 44 items were passed. The 1959 session lasted 127 days and 55 items were passed. The 1960 session lasted 146 days and 48 items were passed. The long session of 1960-61 lasted 174 days and 64 legislative items were passed, in addition to the estimates and everything else. The 1962 session lasted 65 sitting days and 29 items of legislation were passed. The 1962-63 session lasted 72 sitting days and 17 items of legislation were passed. Finally, the 1963 session lasted 117 days and 42 items were passed.
If you will look at the record you will see that in years when an election occurred the sessions were perhaps shorter, but you will also see that there is no great extension of the time of sessions in this country. Despite all the complaints, year after year these sessions are passing supply involving estimates for 20 different departments and are passing
40	to 60 legislative items per session. Over and above that we have the opportunity here to debate and discuss public issues and bring

to the attention of the public things that are going on in this country, the mismanagement of the government, the deprivation of the liberties of the subject in some instances. These things are of vital importance to the welfare of Canada, and this is the reason parliament exists. Here the voice of the people may be heard in complete freedom and without any restraint. That is why I reject and resist the suggestion that there should be a limitation on debate imposed by government action, which is what the hon. member for Port Arthur asked for today. He was asking the Prime Minister to impose, I presume with the support of the member for Port Arthur, a limitation on debate, a deprivation of the freedom of speech that every member of this house should enjoy.


Mr. Caouette:: Mr. Chairman, we heard, in turn, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and then the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) tell us about the inefficient manner in which the business of the house is being conducted.
At the start of his remarks, the hon. member for Port Arthur mentioned briefly the famous film "Mr. Pearson", which has now been loudly publicized throughout the country. It has been said that the production costs of that film were about $35,000.
The film was shown to members of the government. For several weeks the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) has been questioned and asked whether or not the film would be shown on the C.B.C. television network.
The Secretary of State does not know what is going to happen; he has nothing to say to the C.B.C.; and he has no suggestions to offer. He tries to obtain some information but gets no answer. So his answer is always the same; he does not know. We are by no means surprised that he does not know anything, because he never knew much in the past.
But one fact remains. That famous film cost the Canadian taxpayer $35,000, and I maintain that the decision not to show the film taken at mid-day by the directors of the C.B.C. clearly establishes that the government gave some instructions, or made some suggestions, to the corporation not to show this film on television.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The hon. member for Villeneuve just said that the government instructed the C.B.C. not to show this film. Now I think that the statement in the letter I read a short

while ago absolutely contradicts this statement of the hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, what the Secretary of State may have read to us a short while ago in no way contradicts what hon. members, as well as the general public, have been thinking for the past few weeks.


Maurice Lamontagne: Prove it.


David Réal Caouette: This Pearson film business has created, among the Canadian public, a sort of desire mixed with anxiety, to see what had been done for $35,000. It seems to me that the wish of the people to view a film which cost such a tremendous amount of money is perfectly justified. The public should at least have the satisfaction of seeing what was done with the $35,000 which the film cost. But such is not exactly the point.
Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C., through its decision, and a letter which was made public at noon, proved once more it has some entirely irresponsible governors. Besides, it is not the first time I rise in the house to protest against the doings of the C.B.C., against its discriminatory practices.
I shall give to the Secretary of State another example: Last night, we could see on television, for two hours, the St. Jean Baptiste parade. Afterwards, we listened to the C.B.C. newscast, during which we were offered sequences from this parade we had just seen.
Before the showing of these crumbs, we heard, in the name of the Liberal party, of the government of the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Dollard "Desormeaux" (Mr. Rouleau) offering his good wishes to the French Canadians on the occasion of the feast of St. Jean Baptiste; we then heard the good wishes of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and afterwards, those of the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas). But as far as we are concerned, there was no mention of the wishes we were making for our own fellow citizens, the French Canadians in Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Shame.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, it is a shame. Those are the doings of the C.B.C., not only for the last couple of weeks, but ever since its inception.
I wonder whether an individual such as Mr. Ouimet, who is paid $40,000 per year, has the right to indulge in discrimination within the C.B.C. which is financed by the whole Canadian people, no matter what partisanship
Interim Supply
or political colour might exist, all across the country.
Mr. Chairman, last night, we saw another instance of discrimination and I hold the governor of the C.B.C. responsible-


Auguste Choquette: The president.


David Réal Caouette: -president or governor. We write him letters and he does not even have enough time or courage to sign his answers in his own handwriting. He uses a rubber stamp.
For the information of the Secretary of State, Mr. Ouimet is an arrogant person. He thinks he is above the national parliament and can look down upon hon. members of parliament as minor cogs in the machinery for the administration of public affairs. He flouts the federal hon. members. He thinks he is above the government and that is so true that the Secretary of State tells us that he has no authority to tell the C.B.C. how the most elementary justice must be applied within confederation.


Maurice Lamontagne: Read the act.


David Réal Caouette: The C.B.C. has a French branch in our province of Quebec-


Gilles Grégoire: All we do is pay.


David Réal Caouette: As suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe all we do is pay and that is it.
But I would be remiss if I did not draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the doings of C.B.C.
To come back to the "Mr. Pearson" film, it cost $35,000; the people know very well the amount that was spent. If that film is not fit to be seen by the public, C.B.C. officials show their lack of qualifications because when you spend $35,000 and then say that the film is not to be shown because it is not of a good quality, there is something wrong somewhere.
If businessmen and industrialists operated that way, they would have had deficits for a long time, just like C.B.C. has had for many years, because it is administered by unqualified people.
Another point I should like to raise is the business of the house. The government introduces its legislation, and we heard the hon. member for Port Arthur say: Let the government restrict the discussion. Perhaps the members of his own party would be the first ones to be affected, because last year, during the previous session, we saw two members of the New Democratic party carry

Interim Supply
on a filibuster for several days take a pride in having us sit as late as Christmas eve; they rejoiced at that. It is fortunate that the hon. member for Port Arthur specified that his opinions were not necessarily shared by the members of his group, that he was probably the only one to think that way, but that he took the liberty of suggesting to the Prime Minister that he cut the debates if necessary.
Another question was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre clearly accusing the hon. member for Port Arthur of making outside this house statements he should make here so that we may discuss them. At this point, I shall call the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to the fact that if there is a group in this house which endeavours by all means to extend the debate, it is the Conservative group. No wonder, because recently we could read in the papers that the Leader of the Opposition had decided to use every possible means one can think of to come back into office. This is to no avail, for the Leader of the Opposition will never come back into power in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I can hear the applause for the hon. gentleman by hon. members opposite; the alliance is clear. However, the statement made by him is entirely false.


Mr. Dupuis:: You do not even know what he said.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that my statement is untrue-


Yvon Dupuis: He does not know what you said.


David Réal Caouette: -but I do not have to point out what one reads in the papers, one only has to look at the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in the house to have immediately the proof that he is trying to embarrass the government as much as possible and that he is trying by all possible means to create confusion instead of informing the Canadian people of what is going on.
I hear some members speaking in the back of the house, chatterers who have never been able to do anything else. Mr. Chairman, we had the proof of this when they were in power for six years and everything they failed to do during those six years they are

now blaming the present government for not doing it now.
It is not that I approve the manner in which the government introduces its legislation. Indeed not, because we object to it. We also find that a great deal of time is lost because this legislation is not ready.
I have just been among the people and at the present time we keep hearing about the distinctive flag. Everybody wants a distinctive flag. Now, the Leader of the Opposition, who is against the resolution of the Prime Minister-I am told that 50 members of his party might want to speak on the flag resolution-himself promised a distinctive national flag seven or eight years ago. However, he did not have the courage to propose one when he was prime minister.
It was the same prime minister who stated publicly when there were a million unemployed in Canada: Ladies and gentlemen, I shall not close an eye and I shall not sleep as long as there is a single unemployed in Canada. And since that time the former prime minister seems terribly tired because he has not slept for five years. He was almost paralysed at that time.
This is the game that we see. This is the spectacle that the Leader of the Opposition is showing now to the public. He is trying to stir up one part of the population against the other, and putting the blame on the government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is untrue.


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm say it is untrue. Yet, here is the same member who turned white, as white as a sheet, the other day, when his leader was speaking.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm rises on a point of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the house that I object to the views expressed by the hon. member for Villeneuve and which are offensive. I can tell the house that he has entirely lost the people's confidence, because Quebec no longer believes in Mussolini.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, there is no question of privilege in what my good friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has

just said. He is objecting. Have you ever seen him not objecting in the house? He objects about anything. He is always a conscientious objector, wherever he may be. But he does not know why he is objecting. He is a "protestant" in the proper sense of the word.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What were you doing in the last war?


David Réal Caouette: He reminds me of swallows pricking a squirrel from time to time here.
Those people feel sick-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Surely, the hon. member for Villeneuve abuses in his remarks-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the hon. member rising on a point of privilege?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Villeneuve abuses his privileges. I am not surprised to hear those remarks and I would suggest to him not to take Canada for a country once ruled, as it was seen in the old countries, by Hitler and Mussolini. Moreover, his great admiration for those two dictators is well known.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I cannot accept the words of the hon. member as a point of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm just said was prompted by his leader. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm refers to Hitler and Mussolini; I will tell him one thing. Last year, why did certain ministers from his own party run away from the Conservative party? Because their own leader acted high handedly with them.
"Pigeons" and "parrots" are not lacking in the house at present. But there is nevertheless a limit to hearing those people lay the blame on everybody.
For instance how can the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre state that at house leaders' meetings the government house leader has the support of the three other parties, when we know full well that it is not the case with the Conservative party, which is not even represented at those meetings.
Interim Supply
As for us, when the government introduces a piece of legislation in the interests of the Canadian people, we shall support it. But if it is not in the interests of the Canadian people, then we shall oppose the government. That is why we stated for instance, that we shall give our full support to the government's proposal with regard to the adoption of a distinctive flag.
But as for a second flag, we shall not support it; should we do so, it would surely be with reservations. On this point, we shall be as unanimous as in connection with the adoption of a national distinctive flag. This means that we are consistent with what we have been preaching for a number of years, not only in the province of Quebec but throughout this country as well.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I will say this. The impression created by the Conservative party in Canada at present is that the national distinctive flag concerns the French Canadians only, while the union jack will become the flag of the English Canadians.
An attempt is being made to have people believe that the national distinctive flag will be accepted merely to please French Canadians in the province of Quebec, when this is not the case. We have not asked that the emblem of France appear on the national distinctive flag. We requested a totally Canadian flag which will be readily recognizable as Canadian in Canada as well as abroad.
It is this impression that some people are attempting to create in Canada, in Ontario, in the western provinces and in the maritime provinces, to the effect that the adoption of a national distinctive flag is solely to please French Canadians. I must say that the Leader of the Opposition is putting the Canadian people in a dilemma and, instead of filling the chasm which divided the two ethnic groups in Canada, he is widening and deepening it by his untimely and irresponsible statements made in western Canada, such as those he made recently-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is not true.


David Réal Caouette: It is disgraceful for the Leader of the Opposition to state anywhere in Canada, as he did in Toronto, that a small group of the splinter parties wanted to maintain the government in office in order to keep on receiving the $18,000 a year they are getting, because he knew then that he was shamelessly lying.


An hon. Member:: Shame.

Interim Supply


David Réal Caouette: He asserted that he, the Leader of the Opposition, had voted against the increase of emoluments.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, according to the translation, has said with regard to the Leader of the Opposition that he made a statement and that he knew he was lying. I am not certain whether the words "lie" and "lying" are now acceptable in parliamentary practice, but I would like to test the case and ask for a withdrawal.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I have listened to the hon. member for Villeneuve, and if the translation which I heard is a correct translation of what he said, and he did use the word "lie", I would suggest to him it might be far better if he were to phrase his statement in some other way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He must withdraw the statement. It is not just a rephrasing.
[Translation1


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, that transla-i tion, intended for my very good friend from Winnipeg South Centre, did not help any. What I meant to say, and I repeat it in French, is this: The Leader of the Opposition tried to make people believe, which in English means:

-misled people like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I understand the eagerness of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the hon. member has withdrawn his remarks accusing the Leader of the Opposition of lying? I would like your ruling on that. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I never said "lie". I never uttered that word. I was speaking in French and the translation given is inadequate. The English translation would mean:

-misled the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If it is the contention of the hon. member for Villeneuve that the translation was not exactly what he did say, then maybe the committee would accept the statement of the hon. member for Ville-neuve.


Malcolm MacInnis: On that point of order, Mr. Chairman, in that the hon. member has made the statement that the translation was incorrect-


An hon. Member:: How would you know; you don't speak French?


Malcolm MacInnis: I might remind the hon. member that when I do have something to say I don't say it from behind the curtain. What I want to know from the hon. member is this: if in referring to the fact that the translation was wrong, is this a complaint against the translation staff?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on the question of privilege, I think we have had enough such cases lately to recognize that a French word may have several meanings in English and vice-versa.
Now, I feel the interpretation given by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) deserves to be accepted as such. We had a striking example of the point I wish to make when the premier of the province of Quebec made a request at the federal-provincial conference and the French word "demande" was translated by "demand", which, although quite similar, does not mean the same thing.
In my opinion, the hon. member should accept the interpretation given by the hon. member for Villeneuve of the word he used in French.


David Réal Caouette: I was not listening to the translation myself. It is my friends the Conservatives who listen to the translation. As for me, when they speak, I listen to them directly, because I can understand their language. I am not taking them to task. I merely wish to point out that I was not listening to the translation. I am sure the interpretation team is doing a good job, and I congratulate them. Far be it from me to accuse them of interpreting incorrectly what I said in my speech.
Mr. Chairman, this session has already been going on for months and all hon. members would no doubt welcome a summer recess. That is only natural.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We do not want any. In our group, we want to work.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm says he wants to work. There you have the most useless member of this house who wants to keep on doing nothing all summer long.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I am never absent from the house. Since the beginning of the session, the hon. member for Villeneuve has been coming here once a week, and I would ask the Canadian Mussolini to use his own judgment.


Auguste Choquette: He meant the most harmful member.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say here that I strongly object to the remarks made by the irresponsible member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you make the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm withdraw the words "Canadian Mussolini".


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, this is a fact.


Auguste Choquette: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Villeneuve said that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was the most useless member in the house, it was a slip of the tongue. He actually meant to say that the hon. member is the most harmful member here, and he is absolutely right.


Herman Maxwell Batten: In the list of unparliamentary expressions I have here, I do not find the one the hon. member used. Nevertheless, I think it might be in the interest of better decorum in the house if the hon. member would rephrase his statement and use some other word.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I believe you are right, Mr. Chairman. I did make a mistake when I said the hon. member for Villeneuve is a Canadian Mussolini. I should have said a Canadian Hitler.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. In my opinion, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is challenging your authority. I feel he should withdraw the words he has just spoken.
Mr. Chairman, I request a ruling on that point.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I say to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that I do not think the expression he
Interim Supply
used is a proper one and perhaps he would be willing to help the Chair by changing the phrase he used, and withdrawing it.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege. I have had some trouble identifying the member concerned, but the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville has just made another interjection from his seat and I wish to take exception to his conduct, especially to his conduct yesterday evening when he saw fit to send a note implying something which, actually, was not so, and not signing his name to it. He has been identified as the sender of the note, and his conduct is not the conduct one expects from members on the other side of the house.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think the best course would be for the committee to allow the chairman to handle one problem at a time. At the moment I am asking the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to rephrase the statement he made. I think that would be more in keeping with what we would like to have on public record.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, as I have a great deal of respect for the authority of the house, I am pleased to withdraw what I said but, on the other hand, the hon. member for Villeneuve will admit that he has a lot of admiration for Mussolini and Hitler.


Gilles Grégoire: Silly, as usual.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for anything more from the hon. member, because he is known in Quebec as a kind of political clown. That is obvious, when you think of the questions he asks in the house. They are stupid, nonsensical and, once again, he has just made stupid assertions in the house. We shall leave him to his stupidity and keep from falling into his trap.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I will appeal to the good sense of the committee and ask members whether in discussing the motion before us we could refrain from these personalities.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The regrettable expression just used by the hon. member for Villeneuve suits very well a former Liberal member of the house, which he was in the past.


Yvon Dupuis: Never.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Liberal candidate.

Interim Supply


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, he has just shown once again that he is always off the track; he is perfectly ignorant and he will never know any better than what he is doing now.


Auguste Choquette: An excretion.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the Conservatives are in the habit of always making interruptions whenever we throw at them what they have done and what they are still doing to the country, which goes to show that we are right in not believing them any more than the party opposite, on the government side.
All we are asking is that the government introduce its legislation, so that all political parties, whatever they are, may consider it. It is up to the government to see to it that bills are passed, so that the public can benefit by legislation put forward to serve the Canadian individual and to take advantage of Canadian abundance, the potential abundance which exists and which we can create by our intelligence, our brains, our labour, our ability and our great potentialities.
If we do this, we shall be of service, not only to tired members of parliament, but to the people who are quite tired of paying taxes only to get results such as we have now.


Robert Norman Thompson: I think it would be well if we could bring the debate in this committee down to a more reasonable level than we have had in the last few minutes.
We are in the fourth day of the debate on interim supply.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The fifth.


Robert Norman Thompson: If we go back a few years we will find from the evidence of the record that rarely did such a debate occupy more than a day. In fact, it was very often over in an hour or two. We have discussed at length the film "Mr. Pearson". We have discussed the topics brought to the attention of the minister of immigration on Monday-something about the inadequacies of the immigration laws as they are presently administered. We have heard members call each other liars and a lot of other names which are certainly far below the dignity of this house of which we are all members.
It seems to me we ought to come back to just a little more sense of balance and understand that it is our particular responsibility at this time to authorize the expenditure of certain moneys for the carrying on of the

administration of the government and our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: We should let this film matter go by the way for a little while and accept the word that has been given by various members of this house in answer to charges that have been made against them, in the honourable way that we would expect our own word to be accepted. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it would be far more befitting our responsibilities if we were to come to an amiable conclusion of this debate, because obviously we are not debating the subject which is before us at all. I was going to answer the house leader of the official opposition and some of the remarks he made, because I disagree with a number of them; but let us leave that aside as well. Certainly no one can disagree with the fact that I have just mentioned, namely that our responsibility now is to authorize the expenditure for another month of the moneys needed by the government in their responsibilities of carrying on the administration of this country.
We may not have agreed with all the things said by the hon. member for Port Arthur in regard to facilitating the work of this house, but on the other hand we must certainly agree with his basic premise, that we are not making the progress that we should be making. This responsibility falls upon, not just the government, not just the official opposition, but upon all of us. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has inferred very specifically that the house leaders of the minor parties have been in some kind of liaison or behind the scenes plot to work against the official opposition. I do not agree with this; I do not think it is true at all. Many remarks have been made recently to the effect that the fact this house of minorities is not making progress is the fault of the minor parties. This is not true at all. When the house leaders of the minor parties do come together in an effort to facilitate the work of the house, I am convinced they do so with a real depth of sincerity and, shall I say, patriotism, to try and make this house of minorities work. I say it can work if we make up our minds that it will work. It is not good enough just to be harping back to Westminster to try and show that they do not do things any differently than we do, or that they do things differently than we do. Our responsibility now is to each other and it is also to the nation, because there is important legislation on the order paper, waiting to be dealt with. The way we have been carrying on these past four days is certainly neither

to the credit of anybody in this house, nor to the advantage of anybody in this house-because we are the ones who are the final losers, as well as the country.


An hon. Member:: Are you speaking for yourself?


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes, I am speaking for myself. For four days we have listened patiently to the carryings on of this house without making any remarks at all, because it seemed there was already too much being said.
I would appeal to hon. members present today to think upon these things. It is not a question of throwing sticks or stones, as an editorial in today's Globe and Mail points out; it is a question of facing up, in an honourable and responsible way, to the things we have been given the responsibility of doing. It is not a question, as I have just mentioned, of looking back to the past to try to justify our present shortcomings and sins. Rather it seems to me, we should take our hats off to the past, but take our coats off to the future and settle down and get to work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, newspapers operating as they do, I quite imagine there will be a report out of this chamber today referring to a difference of opinion between the hon. member for Port Arthur and myself. I do not deny for a moment the difference of opinion which was reflected a while ago, but I would be very happy if some newspaper reporter would be responsible enough-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to draw attention to the wide measure of agreement between the hon. member for Port Arthur and myself, rather than just drawing attention to the disagreement. So far as the introduction of closure under the rule that is in our books is concerned, I am against it, as are other members of my party; but this is not true for all the members of my party. However, we are all united, and strongly so, behind the position stated by the hon. member for Port Arthur to the effect that the time has come when we have got to do some planning of our parliamentary time.
I feel so strongly about this, and at the same time I am so hopeful that it is an idea that will yet prevail, that it is not my purpose to speak about it in controversial terms. The reason for this I am sure is clear to all hon. members. I have had the honour of being named as the chairman of the subcommittee on procedure of the special committee on procedure and organization, and in both that 20220-300J
Private Bills
subcommittee and the main committee we are wrestling with this question of finding some way by which we might allocate our parliamentary time.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.
Mi. Knowles: The position in which I find myself makes me, in effect, a negotiator among the parties in this house. Because I am a negotiator, because I am still hopeful that the viewpoints of the various groups in this house can be brought together behind a proposal for planning and allocating our time, I shall refrain from indulging in any argumentative discussion of that point during the course of these remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I hear hon. members calling my attention to the fact that it is five o'clock.


Mr. Pascoe:: It is one minute past.


The Chairman:: Order. In order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, and in accordance with section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to leave the chair.
Progress reported.


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



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As there are five private bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole, is it agreed that in accordance with section 1 of standing order 54 they be referred to committee of the whole in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SEICHO-NO-IE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-23, to incorporate Seicho-No-Ie-Mr. Ryan-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 17 agreed to.
On clause 18-Territorial powers.
Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Chairman, could the sponsor of the bill explain to us the effect of this amendment?

Private Bills


Mr. Ryan:: Mr. Chairman, the effect is simply to make clear in the bill that this religious body as incorporated must still make an annual summary or return to the federal government, as if it were an incorporation with share capital.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-15, to incorporate Evangeline Savings and Mortgage Company.-Mr. Ryan (for Mr. Regan).
Bill No. S-18, respecting the Montreal Board of Trade.-Mr. Mackasey.
Bill No. S-30, respecting the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company.-Mr. Chretien (for Mr. Lachance).
Bill No. S-31, respecting the Casualty Company of Canada.-Mr. Chretien (for Mr. Lachance).

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Brown for the second reading of Bill No. S-27, respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should caution the house that if the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) speaks now he will close the debate.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it is not usual to have the Bell Telephone Company before parliament, and when we do I think we should take the opportunity to ask a few questions about the company. I understand that this bill is to increase from 15 to 20 the maximum permissible number of directors. I think the time has arrived that we should look at the Bell Telephone Company in particular, as the largest telephone company in the nation, and the other telephone companies, with a view to incorporating them as a public utility to be operated for the good of the nation.
Telephones are a part of the same field of communication which includes radio, television, telegraph lines and so on. The telephone is used by everybody across the nation in the course of their daily activities. The Bell Telephone Company has been able to exercise tremendous control over the rights of the individual and in my opinion these rights have

quite often been abused by the corporation. In Canada we have a large microwave communications system extending from coast to coast which is owned by the telephone companies of Canada. About 25 per cent of its operations are for purposes of television broadcasting, and a considerable proportion is used for communication purposes by the army, navy and air force.
The telephone has become a vital necessity in the carrying on of the affairs of the nation not only in a military sense but in the business and personal life of the people. I believe that in amending this act we should also include an amendment to provide for the expropriation of the Bell Telephone Company so that, like most other communications media, it will come directly under the control of the federal government.
There are many abuses to which people are subjected by the Bell Telephone Company. Some of these abuses have come to my attention since I have been a resident of southern Ontario, because in northern Ontario we have a different telephone company and the same rules do not apply. I am informed that many arbitrary acts are perpetrated by the Bell Telephone Company in its relations with the general public. If the company wishes to do so it will supply a telephone to an applicant, but if it does not wish to supply a telephone it does not do so. If it wishes to impose a surcharge on a particular line it does so. If a bill is overdue several days the company has been known to cut off the telephone service, although the person may have an exceptionally good credit rating. This has been done several times in the rooming house where I live. It is caused partly by the fact that several persons use the telephone, with the result that the bills are quite large and cannot be apportioned until such time as they arrive at the house. Of course, the company charges an extra $5 to reconnect the telephone. They do not give the normal 30 days for the payment of a bill which is usually extended to those with a good credit rating. Instead they adopt an arbitrary attitude and may cut off the telephone within two or three days with or without warning.
In my opinion the company has used methods that are not conducive to the good and the welfare of the nation. Therefore I believe the time has arrived when we should put the telephone system under the control of the federal government in the same way that other communications media are being operated as public utilities at the present time. There are probably many who have

had an extended connection with the Bell Telephone Company and know more about it than I do. However, I would request an amendment that would provide not only for this company but other telephone companies as well to be brought under public ownership.
I hope that the bill will be referred to a committee. I presume it will and I hope that consideration will be given by members of the committee to a discussion of the merits of whether or not this particular amendment should be granted to the Bell Telephone Company and whether or not it will prove to be in the interests of the people of Canada. The argument may be made, of course, that this does not come within the purview of this amendment. This is perfectly true, but the Bell Telephone Company has a federal charter and therefore it is our responsibility to consider the broader aspects of its operations whenever an opportunity arises as the result of the introduction of amendments. I hope that the sponsor will ask that the bill be referred to a committee so that some consideration can be given to present problems and the advantages that Canada would obtain if the Bell Telephone Company were brought under public ownership in the same way as other communications media which operate under the control and direction of the federal government.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I should like to make on the bill. In reading its language certain questions arise in my mind. First of all, I should like to know if the majority of directors at the present time are Canadians. I should also like to raise the question whether or not all of the directors should be Canadian, in an organization of this type dealing with communications in this country. Generally speaking there is no reason to raise a question of this kind in regard to many of our commercial organizations, but when communications are involved I think the question is a valid one. I should also like the sponsor of the bill to indicate whether there would be any objection to including such a provision in the bill. There is nothing more I wish to say at the moment, but I should like these questions to be dealt with.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the house that the hon. member is now closing the debate.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill. Its sole purpose is to increase from 15 to 20 the number of
Private Bills
directors provided in the act incorporating the company. I might point out to the house that in 1888, when the original bill was passed by parliament, the number of telephones in Canada was 14,550 while at December 31, 1963, there were over 4,090,000. I am referring to those operated by the Bell Telephone Company. In 1888 the total assets of this company amounted to $2,224,290 while at the end of 1963 their assets totalled $2,347,095,000.
In answer to the question of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) I should like to state that at December 31, 1963, the number of shareholders of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada was 195,037. Of this amount, the total number of Canadian shareholders was 189,718. The total number of shares owned by United States citizens was 3,969. The total number of shares owned by other foreign shareholders was 1,350. As can be seen, this is an almost wholly owned Canadian company. As a matter of fact 93.1 per cent of the capital stock is held by Canadians and 97.3 per cent of the shareholders were residents in Canada as at the end of December, 1963. The holding of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company as of December 31, 1963, was 2.8 per cent of the total number of shares.
These figures I have given the house in order to refute the statement made in the house by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in the earlier debate on the bill. Further, in reply to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden), I should like to state that' all the directors of the Bell Telephone Company except one; are Canadians; that is, 14 out of the 15 present directions are Canadian citizens. Only one director is a United States citizen and he is also a director of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company which holds 2.8 per cent of the stock. At the present time, therefore, all the directors but one are Canadian citizens. This is a very high proportion of directors who are Canadian citizens and a very high percentage of shareholders.
With these few explanatory remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall draw my own remarks to a close and leave the bill to the discretion of the house.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is the intention to send this bill to a committee?


James Elisha Brown: I think the bill will, of course, go to the committee on railways canals, and telegraph lines.

Private Bills


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member give the house a list of the directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada as well as a list of the companies those directors control in Canada?


James Elisha Brown: I will be glad to bring any of those matters before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals, and telegraph lines.

Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-34, to incorporate Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to incorporate the Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company. A company known as the Nova Scotia Loan and Building Society has carried on business for many years in the province of Nova Scotia with its head office in Halifax. This company has provided a service to the people of that area. Because of certain limitations of the old building society type of incorporation that has been in existence for a long time, it has been found desirable by the company to continue its present business by incorporation of this Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company. The two companies would then be amalgamated. I would expect to give a more detailed explanation in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-39, to amend the Civil Service Act (bureaucratic oppression).
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I first introduced this bill in parliament I said, by way of explanation, that I had reason to believe some officials of the government, by virtue of their office, have on occasion intentionally deprived certain citizens of their rights declared under the provisions of Canadian statutes. I believe these officials have intentionally withheld those rights or refused the implementation of those rights until, in a given case, the citizen has bent to the official's will.

At present there is no penalty in the Civil Service Act for such bureaucratic oppression. This bill will provide a penalty if guilt for such action can be established. Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks by saying any allegation I may make is not directed against the rank and file of the civil service, most of whom I believe are loyal, devoted and efficient public servants, but rather against the few who trample freedom and ride roughshod over individual rights. Generally speaking, I think I would agree that Canada has a high grade civil service, manned by personnel who are dedicated people, but a service that is handicapped by a system, a system badly needing revision, and one which in many ways represses initiative and favours the status quo.
It has been said that an administrator is a bureaucrat whose prime loyalty is to the public good; a bureaucrat is an administrator whose prime loyalty is to the administrative machine of which he is a cog. While I know that bureaucrats are necessary I also feel a number of them overemphasize their authority and at times eliminate justice. I am one of those who believe that public servants are the servants of the public and not the masters, as some seem to believe by their actions.
Many Canadians, I feel certain, could testify to at some time having suffered the embarrassment and humiliation of tangling with some dominating bureaucrat within our federal departments. If we allow trained, efficient civil servants to take over we get a bureaucracy, and democracy ceases to exist. This fact is a weakness in our democratic system, a weakness which we as members of parliament are charged to watch.
I have stated before and I will repeat that, no matter what party the taxpayers elect, no matter what government is in power, the bureaucratic dictators still run the country. To a large degree the government is a captive of the civil service, and the ministers are hostages to their deputies and senior departmental officials. Successive governments in the capital of our country have, without thought, or I should say without intent, gradually vacated certain areas of authority or responsibility which, in a democracy, should always be occupied by publicly elected officials or their representatives, leaving the departmental officials decisions which they have neither the practical training nor the mandate to exercise.
It may be a revelation to some Canadians, particularly to us members of parliament, to

find out for ourselves the degree to which civil servants have taken over the affairs of our country. As members of parliament I believe that two statements made by the high commissioner of New Zealand in a speech to the royal commonwealth society should be of interest to us. The first statement refers to travellers in his country, New Zealand, and the contact they have with people in that country. I think the same applies here in Canada:
Even lor the native inhabitants it will be found that the public servant has more effect on their lives than all the politicians, businessmen, church, law and press combined.
The second statement that I bring to hon. members' attention is this:
In France before de Gaulle, governments came and went three or four times a year, but the government of France by its highly organized public servants carried on, hardly aware of the changes.
Some hon. members may say this cannot happen in our country; but I wonder if it can. Just a few days ago a press item appeared in the Ottawa Journal regarding civil defence, and dealing with an appearance by a former deputy minister, now a minister of the crown, before the Commons special defence committee. It was in the issue of Friday June 19 and read as follows:
Mr. Drury was questioned in his statement that survival of government was ensured through special shelters, complete with essential records, and rapid transit to them of government officers and a selected 200 top officials, presumably to the four major underground bunkers in the Ottawa area.
He was asked by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Smith):
-where M.P.'s stood on the list of priorities for evacuation in an emergency-
And the hon. member was told:
-they were well down the list, since the plan was to evacuate "only important people."
In other words they do not feel that M.P.'s are important people. In fact lots of times I have felt that maybe we were a sort of nuisance so far as civil servants were concerned.
The article continues:
The laughter this prompted caused Mr. Drury to explain that the 200 officials were top ones "who work for the government"-
This apparently drew another laugh in the committee.
To me, this degree of influence by the civil servants is startling. As a member of parliament since 1958, I have become increasingly concerned about the number of times I have had to accept a ruling, or an answer from a departmental official without a means to
Private Bills
challenge the decision of the bureaucrat. At present there is no adequate parliamentary procedure available to a member of parliament to obtain redress for his constituents' grievances against an unjust ruling handed down by departmental officials, other than appealing to a very busy minister.
In the case of an individual citizen who comes into conflict with some government official, there does not exist for him any procedure whereby he can challenge the action of the executive. There are executives in fact who appear to have the sole power to interpret the act they are charged with administering, and do so without the risk of being penalized for any wrong action on their part. In a great many cases I would suggest the rights of the individuals are being sacrificed to the efficiency of government planners. I have stated previously that I believe the basic trouble lies in the fact that the government has allowed itself to become captive of the civil service, and the ministers are hostages to their deputies and senior departmental officials.
The most recent personal experience I encountered in this regard took place in the private members' hour on Tuesday June 16, when I endeavoured to pilot Bill C-37 through this house. It was talked out by government supporters, with the main excuse that it would be too difficult for the department to administer. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) brought this to the attention of the house when he said, as recorded at page 4366 of Hansard:
it-
-referring to Bill C-37-
-will not receive the attention it deserves because the spokesman for the government, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon) raised the usual objections which come from officials. He said it would be difficult for the department to administer it; that it would be hard to determine the number of people who might qualify.
Well, all these difficulties can be overcome. The records are there; they just have to be searched. They show when a man enlisted, how long he was in Canada and how long he was overseas. They have been carefully kept and this is not an insuperable job at all. I was amused to hear the objections which emanate from officialdom. I do not mind the officials raising the objections; that is their job. They have to point out to ministers and parliamentary secretaries the difficulties in the way of new legislation, and they are responsible for showing that these difficulties exist. But as far as the government is concerned, it should deal with the difficulties and take the necessary steps to put some new measure into effect, if it is found as a matter of policy to be worth while.
I wish to document statements I have made in support of my bill by actual cases I have

Private Bills
dealt with, where I have felt citizens have been deprived of their rights under our statutes or had their rights unneccessarily withheld for a lengthy period of time. The first document I have is a copy of a letter received by a legal firm in my constituency, and it has to do with an immigration case. It is signed by a deputy minister of that department, and I will just read parts of it:
This application has been held up, pending completion of inquiries into the circumstances trader which certain members of the applicant's family arranged for the illegal entry into Canada of a young Chinese lady under the guise of the applicant's sister.
The letter continues, and further on there is this paragraph to which I object most strongly:
X am quite prepared to authorize the admission of Mr. Wong's wife to Canada, now that the facts with respect to the illegal entry of his "sister" have been firmly established: but before doing so I think I should give Mr. Wong a final opportunity to show his good faith by giving the department a truthful statement with respect to the matters which he has thus far been attempting to conceal.
Then there is another sentence:
If you can persuade him that he should do so, this would go far in re-establishing Mr. Wong's good faith in his dealings with the department and would facilitate very greatly his wife's early admission-
To my mind, the last sentence amounts to something like blackmail. If we were to use it in our business, I am sure a charge would be laid against us. I turn again to the beginning of the paragraph where it is stated: "I am quite prepared to authorize". This is the deputy minister. He does not say "my minister" or "my government". It is the boss of the department speaking. Where do these people get this power? Who gave it to them? We gave it to them. That is why I say we have a bureaucratic dictatorship today and not a government of the people. I heard someone say "the minister", meaning the minister gave him that power. This confirms what I said before; we have lost the authority we had. It also confirms what the minister said the other day-that members of parliament are not important. We see here the same situation as exists in France where the country can run without members of parliament. Maybe we should change this system and save the people a lot of money by not having members of parliament. Let us admit we have a bureaucratic dictatorship.
I have here a copy of a letter where the postal cancellation stamp by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is the product

of the deputy minister's signature, not the minister's. Therefore, I contend that the most powerful man in the department is not the minister, but his deputy.
I would turn to another department, now, the Department of National Revenue. Some time ago I had a request from one of the local schools to bring into Canada some tuned hand bells which the applicant thought were duty free. Then I received a letter from the department saying they were not duty free. I will not repeat all the arguments used by the applicant or by myself as representative of the constituency to prove that they were duty free, other than to quote a sentence from the last letter I received from the minister. It reads:
The fact remains that tuned hand bells are not provided for in item 696(1). While they may well be instruments, they are not "philosophical instruments" nor "scientific instruments".
I used the department's own terms to prove otherwise. If we look at any dictionary we see that the term "philosophical" means "belonging to or used in the study of material philosophy or physics." Philosophy means reasoned science. There are many definitions of "science", but the fourth one set out in the dictionary I use is this: "any one of the seven liberal arts-grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy". The definition of "music" is "the science and art of the rhythmic combination of tones." In other words, the department set out those two qualifications, that they must be philosophic instruments or scientific instruments, and when we proved that they were, the answer was still, no.
The next case is a peculiar one. It has to do with the commanding officer of a local unit. To make the story as brief as I can, this commanding officer was let out of his command without cause. A mutual friend asked me if I would try to find out why this officer was let out. After five or six weeks of trying, I finally went to the Prime Minister's office about it and received an answer. I will not read the whole of the letter which was written to me on the subject. The main part of it was to the effect that the unit was in a parlous state, that much difficulty had been experienced with reports and returns, and that the over-all situation was most unsatisfactory. In other words, this officer was a poor administrator. Incidentally, the officer concerned did not know I had endeavoured to find out why he was let out.
When I got this information I went to this mutual friend of ours and said: "You had

better tell him now why he was let out". This was done. At that time, the commanding officer did not really care whether he got the unit back or not. However, when he received this information he became very annoyed and said: "All right. Now they will either put up or shut up". I got permission to go over all his reports and as far as administration was concerned there was not one lower than "good". They were all either "very good" or "excellent".
Most of the transaction was carried on by correspondence. I could see by the reports I was receiving that I was losing my case fighting for this officer. However, that fall there was an army corps conference down here at which a trophy was to be awarded for the best administered unit in all Canada -perhaps I should say "western Canada" to be sure. Lo and behold, the unit under this particular commanding officer won this trophy for the best administered unit. I think that was the clincher. They withdrew what they had said. They said the officer could retain his unit, and they hoped I was satisfied.
I was not satisfied, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the commanding officer would not take the unit back, in the circumstances. Furthermore I, as a member of parliament, had a further point I wished to raise. I had received a reply from the Prime Minister's office-I presume it came from officials in the department-to the effect that the man was a bad administrator, that the unit was in a parlous state, and so on. The men who acted as judges to decide who should win this trophy were not I believe army men, though they had been in the past, nor were they connected with the government. The award was made on a fair basis. In other words, the Prime Minister was getting false information from one of his departments.
My question is this: How can any prime minister run a country if this is the type of information he is getting from the departments? Something should be done about it. Something should be done about the persons who originated the report I have in my hand. When I brought this latter question up, the reply I got about a month later was that the man concerned retired "about 30 days ago."
I have another case here which is peculiar to the west. This concerns an application from one of the ranchers in my constituency -an application to establish a basic herd. This application must be made to the Department of National Revenue. In order to be as
Private Bills
brief as possible, I will just read the reply which this applicant received:
It has been decided that a basic herd cannot be granted, due to the following reasons:
(a)	Insufficient sales shown in the years the returns were filed.
(b)	Possibility that livestock was taken in trade for machinery and claimed as an expense.
Hon. members will note the word "possibility". In this connection I do not think I could do better than quote the reply sent by this man's lawyer to the department. Here is his letter to the Department of National Revenue:
We are absolutely astounded and amazed at the
contents of your letters of the 8th instant	
May we suggest further that before you should be entitled to make the statements contained in your letter which appear to be nothing short of accusations of fraud on the part of our client, there should be some very definite basis for said statements.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sure the remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek will have met with a receptive audience in all corners of the house, not only because of the tone in which he presented his arguments but also from the personal experience of hon. members on occasions in dealing with various aspects of government. It is, after all, one of the most important functions of a member of parliament to try to assist constituents in connection with problems raised by particular administrative decisions which affect them adversely.
The remarks made by the hon. member will find a considerable echo over the years in connection with development which has taken place in Canada, as well as in many other countries, of a body of law referred to as administrative law. It is now more than 50 years since Lord Chief Justice Hewart the former chief justice of the high court in Britain wrote a book entitled "The New Despotism", in which he objected to the very evident growth in Britain and elsewhere in the world of an administrative procedure whereby the rights of individuals were affected, not by decisions of courts of law, which had to proceed upon pre-determined principles and from which there were rights of appeal, but by administrative officers who could not be reached by the law.
It seems to me the objection which the hon. member is making is not so much that

Private Bills
there has been a greater ramification of bureaucracy itself-because if the many measures which find support in this house for increasing activity by the government in all phases of life are to be effective, then inevitably there is going to be an increase in government action and decision making by government officials-but rather his criticism is as to the manner in which these officials act, the manner in which they take their decisions and the manner in which they carry out those decisions. In one of the long standing cases of British administrative law which has been applied by the courts of this country, the case of Board of Education v. Rice, it has been said that the obligation of an administrative official is to act fairly, to hear both sides of any particular question; because after all that is a basic obligation upon anybody who has to decide anything.
Many measures have been proposed in this house, in addition to that proposed by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), which are directed to the same end. We have had in this and earlier sessions a number of legislative proposals for the introduction of the office of ombudsman. I was interested in the hon. member's reference to a speech made by the New Zealand high commissioner because, as hon. members know, the office of ombudsman has been introduced into that dominion and has, to my knowledge at least, worked effectively. The real responsibility of the ombudsman is to make sure that the administrative decision is taken with an absence of arbitrariness, that it is taken fairly and-as the judge said in the case of the Board of Education v. Rice-that where it is appropriate both sides are heard by the particular official.
There have been other proposals along this line. I recall that there was a proposal by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) in her maiden speech in this house. The proposal was that we should consider the enactment of an administrative procedure act which resembles, perhaps, that which exists with regard to the federal service in the United States. That, again, might well be a desirable objective, but it will not entirely meet the concern the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek expressed today and which I think is echoed by hon. members. There are many, many areas which cannot be reached effectively by legal process because the decision is not a legal one or is not of such a scale, in terms of either time or money, that it is possible for a court or series of courts to review it.

Another suggestion which has come from many hon. members is that there should be increased research facilities for members of parliament so that, to borrow a vernacular phrase, the rights of any particular constituent will not be buried under a "snow job" by an individual administrator who is in better possession of the facts than is the member of parliament.
I think all these matters deserve attention by this parliament, but I would submit that the particular measure put forward by the hon. member would not be likely to correct this particular wrong, which we all recognize and which many of us feel should be corrected in a variety of ways. My reason for saying so is by reference to the words of the proposed amendment itself. Hon. members will note, in looking at it, that, to borrow a lawyer's term, there is no element of mens rea; there is no element of guilty intent required to establish the offence under the particular section. The offence can be established and the particular official can be punished, and very severely, in accordance with the provisions of subclause (b), by the mere proof that there has been action which deprives an individual of his rights, whether or not action was taken by the official with a completely honest intent, was taken by him because of a genuine and honest mistake as to the law, or whether it was taken by him, again, with complete genuineness, but without being in full possession of the facts. I would suggest that the measure proposed by the hon. member for the purpose of inhibiting oppressive action is itself almost more oppressive than that which it seeks to restrain.
A further problem which arises in this regard is the very obvious difficulty of any administrative officer in determining the extent to which any particular action may or may not accord with the basic guarantees set down by the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Canadian Bill of Rights is modelled very closely, or certainly took inspiration from, the bill of rights which has been included in the amendments to the United States constitution. That constitution is a living document, and for the past 150 years or more it has been the subject of continued and very intense definition by the courts.
I suggest it would be well nigh impossible for any particular individual in any particular instance to determine, for example, whether he was depriving an individual of property or liberty without due process of law. It would be almost impossible for him

to determine whether in any particular instance his conduct did or did not amount to a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights. While it certainly is desirable, as the hon. member suggested, that there should be fairness in arriving at decisions-and I think all hon. members would support that-I think all hon. members, on reflecting on the difficulty which would be created, would agree that there would be a great risk that the heavy criminal penalties the hon. member is proposing here against members of the civil service, who may be acting in perfect honesty, would result in the civil service in critical areas being paralysed rather than assisted and decision making being impaired by this particular measure. For these reasons I feel this particular legislative proposal is not one that should commend itself to members of this house; it is not one that is appropriate for dealing with this problem.
As to the particular cases referred to by the hon. member, I am sure there may well be problems of the kind referred to but I am not in the position to answer each one individually. However, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that even in those cases there was very probably that honest difference of opinion which, while it might call for administrative action, does not call for the harsh kind of action which this bill proposes.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour assigned for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this evening are as follows:

1.	The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm: Repeal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
2.	The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm:	Transportation-the Gaspe
peninsula railway.

It being six o'clock, the house will now revert to consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.
Interim Supply SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, during the course of the discussion this afternoon the subject of the procedure of this house came up for a little discussion. Because like you, sir, I am a member of the special committee on procedure and organization, it was not my intention to raise this matter at this time, and even so the remarks that I shall make will be brief.
The hon. member for Port Arthur said something this afternoon which I hope will be noted. He suggested that perhaps the most important question that faces us procedurally, the most important question that faces us in the management of the affairs of the House of Commons, is this question of planning or allocating our parliamentary time. As our business in parliament grows apace from year to year and as issues which we discuss become sharper, it seems to me that we are going to have to face this problem and come up with an answer to it. I think we should be mature enough to realize that doing some planning and organizing of our debates does not involve the denial of free speech or the down-grading of democracy.
We already have, Mr. Chairman, many rules and regulations which some believe might have interfered with free speech. We have a rule that no member can speak at one time for more than a certain number of minutes. We have a rule that when Mr. Speaker is in the chair no member can speak more than once to the same question. We have rules as to when the house sits and when it adjourns. We have rules that limit the debate to eight days with respect to the address in reply to the speech from the throne and to six days on the main budget debate. In addition to that we have a rule that limits debates on supply motions to two days each. We introduced this year the temporary rule that limits the length of debate on a notice of motion for the production of papers. I do not think anyone would allege

Interim Supply
that because we have these various limitations, in some dastardly way we have denied freedom of speech to members who are elected by their constituents to come here and represent them in parliament. These rules are simply common sense regulations that we have agreed to, so that one person will not talk all the time, so that there will not be anarchy and so that we can get along with the business we have come here to do.
It just so happens, Mr. Chairman, that some of us here feel that the amount of that business has so increased that we are going to have to extend this principle of planning, regulating and organizing our parliamentary time. That is why I think we should put our minds to this problem. That is why I think we should consider it and discuss it and negotiate it in committees and in conferences, and resolve that we will come up with a solution. What some of us have proposed is already in the public domain and I do not intend to refer to it at length. Indeed, what I shall say is offered not in any argumentative sense but rather as an example of one way in which I think this problem can be solved.
I think we could by a standing order provide for a special committee which could make recommendations as to the length of time that would be spent on certain debates. I think we could, if we could agree to such a standing order, reach agreement in advance before a certain debate on second reading, or in committee of the whole or what have you, got started, and having reached agreement could then have the debate end at that agreed point, just as the debate on the address now ends at the end of eight days and the debate on the budget now ends at the end of six days.
It seems to me that by some such process we could introduce regularity, order and some common sense into the use of the time which we have. We have only so much time. There are only 12 months in the year, and the amount of business that we have, if you take into consideration the necessity to spend some time in our constituencies, compels us to plan and organize our business. I hope that we will move to some form of this kind of planning. I certainly do not urge that the particular proposal, the drafting of which I have had something to do with, is sacrosanct; if someone else can draw up a better one, that is fine. But I do plead that we look at this whole problem objectively and realize that, if we can reach agreement on the planning and organization of our time, we are not denying

freedom of speech, we are not bringing down the curtain on democracy; we shall be making the work of this house more effective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think, Mr. Chairman, we should be honest enough to admit that the criticisms which are made of us sometimes in the press and by commentators are merited. Instead of just saying they are wrong we should pay some attention to them. For example, I think of last night's "Viewpoint" on the C.B.C., wherein James Stewart of the Montreal Star gave his assessment of the debate of yesterday and the previous two or three days. It was pretty critical, and I think it was a valid criticism. I think it is good for us to hear that kind of criticism. But in addition to hearing it, I think we should take it to heart and try to make some improvements in our proceedings.
This afternoon there was obviously a little difference of opinion between some of us in this group about a certain word, the word "closure". I mention it again only to draw the distinction between closure as it is now in our standing orders-it is standing order 33-and the planning or the allocating of our time in the way the hon. member for Port Arthur urged the house to consider. Closure is something which is imposed by the government when it has a majority one way or the other, and it is brought on after a debate has bogged down, after there is ill will and antagonism and all the things which we know have developed on those few occasions in Canadian history when closure has been used. But the kind of thing the hon. member for Port Arthur urged this afternoon on behalf of this group, the kind of thing I have had a part with you, sir, in drafting for consideration of those who were dealing with this matter, is quite different.
What we propose is not that the government use whatever majority it commands to compel the house to quit a debate that has already bogged down. What we propose instead is agreement among the parties through a committee that will consider the matter, and what we also propose is that agreement be reached in advance. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is not a denial of free speech, not a ringing down of the curtain on democracy. It is something that is sensible, that is a case of planning, a case of organizing the time that we have.
As I have already said this afternoon and repeated when I started this evening, if it

had not been for the fact that the question was opened up I would not be speaking on it, for the reason I already gave. I have the great privilege of being a member of the committee on procedure and organization and we are working hard on this very question. We have been on the question of the allocation of time, or what have you, for over two months. We have had meetings of the main committee and the subcommittee times without number. The proposal I have referred to is before the committee and an alternative proposal was presented by a member of the committee yesterday. We are wrestling with the matter. It is slow business. I do not blame members for being impatient, but because I am involved in the negotiating I should like any remarks I make to be of a general nature rather than a case of indulging in controversy.
But I do support the proposition that the hon. member for Port Arthur put forward this afternoon, namely that this whole question of coming to grips with the planning of our parliamentary time is one of the most important questions that faces us as members of parliament.


Mr. Langlois:: Do like we did in Quebec. Get rid of the Conservative party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That remark is not consistent with the spirit in which I am trying to approach this question because I think that if we are going to achieve anything of the kind I am advocating it has got to be done by general agreement, almost by unanimous agreement, among the parties and groups that make up the House of Commons. My plea is that we should think about this matter and consider the representations that are being made to us by people outside who criticize our activities, and let us see if we cannot do something along this line.
I say again, Mr. Chairman, that I am as opposed to the use of closure as I was in 1956. I have said on occasion, and I think it is in print in various places, that it is not closure itself that is bad but rather it is the abuse of closure that is bad. That is a nice, academic statement to make, but the fact of history is that every time it has been used since it was first brought in in 1913 it seems to have been a case of abuse. It has always produced a nasty, difficult situation in the House of Commons.
I think we have got to find something better than the stopping of debate by the vote of the majority. I think we have got to find a better way whereby we can get together, bargain in good faith, negotiate and
Interim Supply
come up with a method of planning our business. I agree 1000 per cent with the words used in this connection this afternoon by the hon. member for Port Arthur, that this is the most important problem facing us, and I think we have got to grapple with it. When suggestions are made there is no point in trying to find some easy way out; but we will grapple with the problem if we face suggestions seriously, as we are doing in the special committee on procedure and organization. If some members are impatient with our delay, I accept that criticism on behalf of my subcommittee at any rate. But it may be that if it takes us a little while longer to come up with something, we will produce something that will be lasting and worth while and will help to make parliament a place where freedom of speech remains, but where we will do our job a little more efficiently than is sometimes the case.
If it had not been for this subject being raised this afternoon I would have spoken only on the one other subject about which I now wish to say a few words. I am glad that the President of the Privy Council is in his place, as he has been throughout this debate on interim supply because he is piloting it through the committee and the house. I remind him that on June 11, as recorded on page 4186 of Hansard, he made a commitment as to something he would do in committee of supply.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This was the second time to my knowledge that the question of ministers having secretaries or employees on the government payroll working in their constituencies had been raised. The first time it was raised was on June 9, as recorded on page 4088 of Hansard. It was raised on that occasion by the hon. member for Red Deer and the President of the Privy Council gave a short answer, but went on to say he would do his best to see what further answer could be brought forward. Then, as I have said, on June 11 the matter was raised by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. My leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, took part in the discussion. It was obvious that we were not satisfied, and so it was that on that occasion the President of the Privy Council said:
I will be glad to discuss the matter further on interim supply. I do not yet have all the information I want. Since this question was raised in the house I have had the appropriate officials get the

Interim Supply
information and put it together, but it is not complete at the moment. However, I will be able to give more information later.
This question arose because of news reports that got out to the effect that in at least two cases people had been taken on staff at government expense and assigned to offices or places within the constituencies of the ministers concerned. Some of us felt this was a questionable procedure and I for one looked up the Civil Service Act under which we were told this had been done. I am looking at the Statutes of 1960-61, chapter 57, and I find that section 71, subsection 1, reads as follows:
A minister may appoint his executive assistant and his private secretary, and other persons to be employed in the office of a minister shall be appointed by the governor in council.
Surely the key words in that subsection are the words "to be employed in the office of a minister". We learned that there were two orders in council. There may be others, but we know of two. One is P.C. 1964-5/490 which appointed Mr. Andre Cote as special assistant in the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at Baie des Sables, Quebec, with salary at the rate of $7,500 per annum, effective March 2, 1964. The other was order in council P.C. 1964-18/738 which recommended the appointment of certain persons as indicated on the document in the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with salaries at the rates stated, effective May 1, 1964. One of those listed by name is referred to as "principal clerk at Niagara Falls, Ontario", and the salary is $5,220 a year.
I wondered how it was possible to appoint people by order in council to work at these places, one in the province of Quebec and the other at Niagara Falls, in view of the wording in the act which says that such appointments shall be made of persons "to be employed in the office of a minister". That is the reason, of course, that I put on the order paper two rather harmless looking questions. One read, "Where is the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration", and the other read, "Where is the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare". It seemed to me those were very simple questions which could be answered almost immediately. Surely these ministers know in each case where his office is, but it took ten days to get answers to these questions. When the first opportunity went by without the questions being answered I got up on a question of privilege. In reply the parlia-

mentary secretary to the Secretary of State said that there was some difficulty involved, and I quote his words as found on page 4399 of Hansard:
-the delay here Is due to the problem of Interpreting the precise meaning of the word "office". Does this refer to the place, or does it refer to a particular legal function performed by the minister? When this question has been dealt with, the answers will be forthcoming.
Well, a week later, on June 24 on page 4661-62 of Hansard, we got the answers as to where these offices are located. In the case of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, this is the answer:
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration performs the duties of office in various places, but principally at the following addresses: Citizenship building 22-30 Slater street, Ottawa: 439C, House of Commons, parliament buildings; and second floor, Immigration building, Champlain harbour station, Wolfe's Cove, Quebec.
Now, how can one stretch the words "can be employed in the office of the minister", to offices in the plural? I point out also, that unless my geography is completely lacking, I do not see any connection between Wolfe's Cove and Baie des Sables. In other words, there is no attempt in the order in council to suggest that this person is employed in any one of the offices of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In the case of the Minister of National Health and Welfare this was the answer given on June 24:
The Minister of National Health and Welfare performs the duties of her office in various places, but principally at the following address: Copeland building, Ottawa, Canada; room 253S, House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada; 551 Clifton avenue, Niagara Falls, Ontario.
Well, it is very obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the reason for the delay in producing answers to this simple question was to produce something that would fit the facts that had been brought out in the meantime. But the fact still remains that the act under which these orders in council were produced speaks of the office of the minister in the singular. I will read it again:
-other persons to be employed in the office of a minister shall be appointed by the governor in council.
I suggest that it is just playing with the law to say that, on the basis of that, persons can be employed anywhere in the country where the minister says, "This is a place where I am doing the work of my office". What is "office"? Is it a function or is it a working place, the place where people are employed?

If this is true, I want to give some information to the Leader of the Opposition, if I could have his attention for a moment, because there is a subsection in this same section 71 that happens to deal with him. Subsection (5) of section 71 says:
This section applies to a person employed in the office of the person holding the recognized position of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons as it applies to a person employed in the office of a minister.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if what the government has done is valid, all the Leader of the Opposition has to do is say he has an office in Prince Albert, that he performs his work at offices in various places, say in the House of Commons and in the home that is provided for him in Rockcliffe, in Prince Albert or wherever he chooses, then under the same provision he can get, at government expense, clerical or secretarial help in his office. Now, mind you, the law does not go any further but fairness would go further. If a minister can have people on the government payroll in his office in his constituency, if the Leader of the Opposition can have this help, then the member for Cape Breton South should have clerical help at an office in Sydney or Glace Bay. I have an office at 1036 Notre Dame avenue, Winnipeg, and I should like to have some help there.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman would allow me, I would say he does not tempt me. I was not tempted when I was prime minister, and paid my own office expenses. I am not tempted now, but it is a very interesting observation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Leader of the Opposition is such a good Baptist, I knew there was no point in putting temptation in front of him.


John George Diefenbaker: I am always able to resist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I trust that Hansard got his words, that he is always able to resist.
We are having a bit of fun about this. Even this last bit of fun that has been raised is not inappropriate. If it is fair for a minister to have assistance with his work in the constituency, it is fair for a member. The amount of work is growing so that this is becoming a real issue. Perhaps we do not need the same amount of help, but I suggest we need help if we are going to do our job effectively and efficiently. If it is fair and proper for some people to have this kind of help, then the provision should be extended to all.
The point I am making now, Mr. Chairman, is not the question of extending it but the question of the validity of those two orders
Interim Supply
in council. They are purportedly based-they say so-on the provisions of section 71 (1) of the Civil Service Act; both of them name that section. I have read the section. The section says people can be employed by order in council in the office of a minister. The ministers have stretched things a bit by telling us they have several offices. However, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has not even told us he has an office at Baie des Sables, Quebec.
One of the reasons given by the President of the Privy Council for following this practice was that the former government did it; it had been done down through the years. The President of the Privy Council said that one change had been made. Previously, it had been done by a minute of the treasury board, and now it is done by order in council.


George James McIlraith: No, it is the very opposite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I see the minister shaking his head.


George James McIlraith: I should like to be quoted accurately. Perhaps I can help the hon. member if he wishes. I will help him clarify the point he is making.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad the hon. member asked me to read his words. There is a slight difference between what I said and what he said. He did say one change had been made. I am quoting now from page 4185 of Hansard for June 11, 1964;
The practice of appointing persons to the staffs of ministers outside of Ottawa is a long established practice which goes back many years. When this government took office it reviewed the practice followed by the previous administration and continued to maintain it in force. There was one change; now the appointments have to be approved by the treasury board before the order in council is submitted to the governor in council.
I thank the hon. member for suggesting that I read it correctly. What does that one change amount to? The fact is it is still being done by order in council, supposedly based on a particular section of the act. If I understand the meaning of words at all, surely that meaning is clear, that the persons to be employed in the office of the minister shall be appointed by the governor in council. But the ministers do not know where their offices are. Having appointed these people to offices in their constituencies, then they try to come up with a definition that includes this. I suggest that is playing with the law. This is not good. The law is something very serious, and I think that the government, of all people, should pay attention to the strict observance of the law.

Interim Supply


Mr.   Olio@: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to take part in this debate, but since the subject has turned to what I consider a more sensible point of view, particularly in connection with the house, its rules and procedures, I would like to say a few words.
I am a relative newcomer here and have not been aged in the parliamentary process that is apparently so much required. I agree to a great extent with what the hon. member for Port Arthur said, that the house is here to protect the rights of individuals, to debate principles and legislation and to supply money to the government, but I wonder whether the people of the country think we should be doing more in the way of legislation.
Quite recently many comments were made about the other place. It would probably surprise hon. members to know that the work done there by the members of the other house is probably more than has been accomplished here, and they have given more knowledge and initiative to the people of Canada than we have given. Indeed, I think it is time we must consider whether we should not change and drastically reform the rules under which we work.
This is going to require the wisdom of Solomon because, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, if limitation is put on debates-and in all likelihood this will be organized by the whips-then my chance of getting to speak will be very slim, as will be that of the hon. member for Port Arthur. On the other hand I do agree with the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre when he says we must make some attempt to plan the order of business of the house. If we are going to do that however, we shall have to plan a little deeper than we have up to now, and I say this with the greatest respect. The only example I can use is that of the question period, which used to take anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half. A decision was taken to postpone part of it, but it still takes an hour and a half, and we have that second question period as well. We have not done very well in that reform.
It is said hon. gentlemen ask questions because they do not know the answers. Of course this is not so. If they did not know the answers they would not ask the questions. They know the answers quite well. In this void of activity in the house we have come to a new era where the establishment has grown. What is the establishment? Well, it is difficult to define, but its power is easily

felt in anything we do. Indeed I would say that most of the comments, most of the barbs aimed from the other side in this debate have not been so much at the ministers but at this establishment, and that includes the comments during the last few days about the film. The establishment is that body which decided to keep these people incarcerated for some 90 odd days. It is not the minister; it is that overpowering establishment, without control.
I know the ministers and what they do. Analysing very clearly the duties they have, even if they work a 16 or 18 hour day, when a minister gets through with the interviews, cabinet meetings and the house-he must sit in the house-and the speeches he is expected to make, he has not got time to find his office, as the hon. gentleman who _ preceded me pointed out, let alone try to initiate the program of the government. Consequently this has now been transferred to the establishment.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. member permit a question. Would he explain what he refers to as the establishment. What does my hon. friend mean-and I may say I refer to him very truly and sincerely as my hon. friend.


Mr. Otto:: I am just trying to point out that the establishment is difficult to define, but it is administration gone rampant-is that what you might call it? It is these people who have made the decisions, the administration with the powers they have assumed, and they have done this in the past, and not just with the present government. I do not think it has come about all of a sudden. It is a growing thing and it is going to be hard to straighten out.
The legislation should initiate here. This is a most able house. In private life I have had some experience in business, and I will say without hesitation that most of the members here would do credit to any enterprise that they choose or would have chosen in the business world. It is unfortunate that there is no means of expression in the house. The talents here are obvious, and I speak of every corner of the house, but they are now being used to split hairs, to debate rules of procedure, points of order, which party should sit closer to the Speaker, and whether one member was enticed from one party to another. These are the things in which the members have to interest themselves, because there is so little room for expression.

We have had a very good example of how the talents of all hon. gentlemen were used in the special committee on defence, a very good committee which has helped the minister. We all acknowledge the minister had very little trouble with the house, and that he had a great amount of help and assistance from members in all parties. Since we have had this good example I ask why the committee on rules and procedure could not consider this as another way of extending the work that is available, possibly with committees attached to every department from which the ministers can get advice in initiating legislation-not from the administration, not from the establishment, but from the members elected by the people of Canada.
I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who is heading the committee on procedures, but I sometimes wonder whether he truly agrees with me on what reform is. Consider, Mr. Chairman, the page boys just behind you, possibly a throwback from Nelson's flagship. These young boys walk right by our noses every single day, but have we stopped to consider that they get on their buses at 11.30 at night and do not get home until midnight? They have to go to school in the morning, at seven or eight o'clock, and they can only spend a half day at school.
How many of them drop out and what have we done for them? If we must have page boys let us see that they get an education, that possibly they be tutored. Have we become so callous, so hard that we do not even notice these things. My idea of reform is that the nation can no longer tolerate these lads going through life without an education.
I had this happen to me the other day. A page boy who was becoming too old to be a page boy came to me to see if I could get him a job in the Department of Public Works. But he had only received a grade VII education and the civil service would not take him. We have done this. We should consider carefully, if we are to have page boys, whether they are to be educated and whether they should be given the same opportunity as we would give to our own children. This, indeed, would amount to reform, and it is on this note that I would like to conclude.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is curious, but it always seems that when anyone on this side wishes to speak we are urged to go a little faster,
Interim Supply
but when someone else, over there, wants to speak it does not matter if time is taken up.
I have been extremely touched by the charges coming from the government side, especially from the Prime Minister, that the business of the house has slowed down to a crawl-that there is obstruction. Well, what hypocrisy. That is all I can call it. I sat on that side of the house for five years and watched the four horsemen at work, as well as those people behind him. They can still teach this side some lessons on how to slow things down to a crawl. There is no point in recrimination. I am not going to say "yes, you did" or "no, you didn't". But I will say that it lies ill in the mouth of the government at this time to say we are not getting on with the business of the house.
Let us look at the committees situation. This year committees were not called until April 10. They did not meet for organization until April 21. In the past, under previous governments, the estimates committee had at least one, if not two departments to get through. This administration has not referred one department to the estimates committee. It has not sat-oh yes, it did sit, for an organization meeting. Since then it has not done a thing. Oh, the hon. lady, who I see in her place, did come in at the last minute. I was a member of that estimates committee and I have gone over the estimates of many a department. Many departmental estimates could have been referred to other committees. Why, for instance, have not the estimates of the Department of Labour been referred to the committee on industrial relations? The committee on marine and fisheries could have handled the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. The estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce could have gone to the estimates committee, as well as those of the Minister of Justice, the house leader himself. We could have done something. Instead, everything has been held back. The government cannot say that the departments have not been called. We have had four supply motions and the estimates are available. If hon. gentlemen opposite would listen to some of their own officials they would know that many senior officials welcome the opportunity to go before the estimates committee or a special committee because it gives them an opportunity of putting forward their opinions and reviewing their position, thus developing the administration of government. Instead, everything is kept in the enclave of the treasury bench.

Interim Supply
Let us look where some of the faults lie. It is not so much in the legislation. We have not seen any legislation of any consequence. The representation bill has been hidden away since April 27. What legislation has been blocked? The government would like to get to the flag resolution. Well, I will read what John Meyer, financial editor of the Montreal Gazette has to say about the introduction of the flag resolution at this stage:
Matters erf present concern to the conduct of business have now been put aside in favour of what will be prolonged and acrimonious debate on the flag. This is a luxury the country is not yet in a position to afford.
I will tell those on the treasury benches this: They ought to see what their reputation is like abroad. I have come back after three weeks spent talking to Canadians and friends of Canada and they say: What on earth has gotten into your government, that they should go forward with this sort of proposition at this time? Hon. gentlemen opposite may frown. The Minister of Trade and Commerce may frown in disbelief. But if it were not a breach of confidence with the people who told me these things I would give him the names. I do not intend to go into the flag issue right now, but I will say this: Do not go crying on anybody's shoulder or shedding crocodile tears about the business of the country.
Student loans, the revision of the family allowance plan, the pension act, the legislation dealing with rail transportation-all these things are ahead of us. We remember on May 15 the Prime Minister reading that long list of parliamentary business. He impressed on the house and on the country at the time the importance of dealing with all these things before the summer recess. Then he put that little caveat at the end. And what did we get? We got the flag resolution. That will settle the country's affairs. This is the kind of priority we were given. It was nothing but a political sham to introduce it at this time. We could discuss a flag-and I am quite prepared to do so on a later occasion this year, when we have dealt with these other matters. Has it priority over the pension plan in the scheme of affairs of this country? Has it priority over the growing need for a change in our transportation set-up or any of those other matters which the Prime Minister impressed upon us as being highly important. They have been thrown in the ash can. Even so, does the Prime Minister think that when he proposes, we should dis-

pose without question of a matter such as the flag issue? Did he or his advisers think for one moment that they would get away with a picayune debate in this chamber? If so, they are sadly mistaken. Certainly the Liberals have gotten much further away from the grass than they were in 1956 and 1957.
I suggest to the house leader that even now there is time to pick up some of these loose threads. Why does he not have estimates referred to the estimates committee? The members are prepared to work. I have here a list of what has been done by the various committees. The committee on agriculture and colonization, organized on April 21, has met to discuss tobacco research. The committee on banking and commerce organized on April 23 has dealt with some bills which came to it from the other place. The miscellaneous private bills committee has done the work assigned to it. The industrial relations committee was organized on April 23 and as far as I can see it remains organized. The veterans affairs committee was organized on April 21 and it has stood down. The committee on food and drugs, a special committee, is carrying on. The committee on procedure and organization, a special committee, is carrying on. The committee on marine and fisheries was organized on April 30 and is dealing with pieces of legislation. The public accounts committee was organized on April 30 and is working. The committee on mines, forests and waters was organized on April 30 and is standing by. The committee on privileges and elections has had its days in court. Next, railways, canals and telegraph lines. It has been dealing with the reports of the crown corporations connected with transportation.


Mr. Davis:: What about external affairs?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: External affairs met earlier, and it has dealt with the Columbia river treaty. Yes, it worked. And it is dealing with the estimates.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We are waiting for the estimates.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My hon. friend from Oxford tells me they are waiting for the estimates. Why haven't they been meeting? Item 1 was discussed in the house and the debate was adjourned so that the estimates could go to the committee. Is this organization of the business of the house? You do not have to have any wide revision of the rules, just to bring in new rules to break or not observe. If we observed the rules that we have, we

could do a good job. Half the speeches could be much more relevant, and that would cut down the time taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, you can always hang a little bait and the suckers will bite. I will tell you who are the chief offenders.


An hon. Member:: You are.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The chief offenders are the ministers in their opening statements. They open the shop wide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think I have a little experience in this regard and I will say this; I am not singling out the speeches from the opposition side or the government side as being particularly irrelevant. This is a criticism that applies to us all. I suppose this afternoon we have indulged in a little bit of confessing of one's soul, and therefore I would ask hon. members to look at their own speeches and see that they are relevant; that on second reading they are not making the speech they could not make at the resolution stage, or that on clause 1 in committee they are not making the speech that the whip did not allow them to make on second reading.
I can see that some of the younger members on the other side of the house seem to think that at the present time things are not all as they should be, and they feel gagged, frustrated. I ask them and those who have sat over here to just read the previous Hansards and they will see that some of their colleagues who are now silent-they are the proverbial mummies-when they were over here were the gadflies of Hansard. It all depends on what side of the house you sit as to how you look at it.
I am going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in regard to this question we should ourselves pay a little more attention to the rules and let the government organize its business. Let us see some of these estimates go to committees; let them have more estimates. We can have estimates for two days a week. I fully subscribe to the remarks of my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, and I would say that the principal task of this house is to grant supply and to examine government administration and business. That is done in the consideration of the estimates.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pass on to one or two other matters. If the Minister of Justice is within earshot I would like to address to him a personal plea. In 1962 there was introduced in the
Interim Supply
other place Bill No. S-2, dealing with amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. It was passed in the Senate, given first reading in this house and then that parliament was dissolved. Last year the present administration brought forward the same legislation. It was amended in the Senate and brought here and given first reading, but has died. This is important legislation in certain provinces which are seeking these changes to the Bankruptcy Act. My prime concern is this. I do not know what happens in the minister's office. Has he a great big sack for correspondence that is almost bottomless, because I have written and written to his office but have received no reply. I think that I, as a member of this house, am entitled, just like any other member, to the courtesy of a reply. I am not putting the blame entirely on the minister; but surely to goodness somebody in that circle of assistants who have been hired is at fault. These letters of inquiry on government business should receive an immediate reply. I asked a very simple question: Is it the government's intention to reintroduce this legislation: and if so, when? Yet, Mr. Minister, two letters, the first dated May 6 and the second May 20, have gone unacknowledged. I regret that I have to say this publicly, but it is something that must be corrected.
There is another point I would like to raise with the Minister of Justice. This also dates back to 1962. I had correspondence with his predecessor in this regard and I have had correspondence with him. This is a very technical point from a lawyer's point of view, but I think it is a rank injustice that it continues to exist. I refer to the abrogation by judgment of the former president of the exchequer court of rule 264 of the rules of that court, dealing with the taxation of solicitor and client costs by the registrar. It has been in the rules for many years and solicitors have advised their clients on it; parties have acted on the strength of it. A right is established under this rule. We know in the common law provinces that we can do this: If a client is not satisfied with my solicitor's bill on a conveyance, that bill can be taxed before a taxing officer. There is thus some justice; he does not have to start a supreme court action or a district court action, nor do I have to start such an action to get my bill established.
In an unreported judgment back in 1961 this rule was declared to be ultra vires. I am not going to go into the merits of that judgment as to whether this should or should not be the case, but I think the procedure was

Interim Supply
wrong. First of all, I think it is wrong that the judgment should be unreported, and second I think it is wrong that no remedial action has been taken to amend the Exchequer Court Act to take care of this situation. The president of the exchequer court indicated that the act did not provide for this, and that therefore it was ultra vires. Correspondence with the ministers of justice has indicated that they are considering changes to the Exchequer Court Act. I would like to see the appropriate action taken. It is not a very complicated matter and action could be initiated in the other place. May I commend this to the Minister of Justice, because I think a grave injustice is being done to a great many clients, particularly those in the case on which this judgment was based.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn my attention to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the few minutes that remain at my disposal. This question is concerned with the application of section 5(d) of the Immigration Act, the so-called statutory bar. We know that in the past there were many cases in Hong Kong where a wife took a false statutory declaration in the furthering of a scheme for the entry into this country of her husband. As a result of the investigations which were conducted, as a result of the amnesty that was granted to all persons of Chinese origin in this country who might have entered illegally-that is, if they had come forward, disclosed all the facts and had their status regularized-these people were told by the minister in a letter, which thanks them for their courtesy and co-operation in so coming forward, that they now enjoy full status as though they had arrived here legally in the first place. They then applied for their wives, and the answer was immediately given: "We regret that she cannot enter this country because she took a false statutory declaration and is therefore barred under section 5(d) of the Immigration Act". In other words, the minor partner or accomplice in a scheme, which is, it is admitted, an illegal scheme, is the one who is punished after the principal actor has entered the country and been forgiven. Or is there just a delayed penalty behind the minister's letter when he says to them: "Your status is as though you had entered this country legally and you have the same rights as anyone else, with the exception that you cannot bring your wife to Canada for five years after she had taken the statutory declaration"?
I have written to the minister in regard to a number of cases of this kind and I

would urge upon him an immediate revision or review of the application of the statutory bar. I realize the necessity for regulation; but in view of the fact that this amnesty has been given, why visit a further penalty upon these people? After all, I should think in 99 per cent of such cases the wife has been a docile accomplice. She has been asked to take this statutory declaration in order to fit the scheme. Yet we are visiting an additional penalty upon her while her husband, who is here, has been forgiven and goes scot free. I would urge on the minister that this matter be reviewed immediately.
The last matter I should like to speak about, Mr. Chairman, concerns Canadians who travel abroad in Europe and our Canadian personnel in our embassies in Europe. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what they have to read for news of Canada? They get, provided the Telex is not overcrowded, a sort of synthesis of a C.B.C. news release, a daily edition but necessarily compressed to perhaps one page or a page and a half foolscap size. Then they get the first four pages of Le Devoir, which are cut out and air mailed. Then the Ottawa Journal makes a special print of the four principal pages-the front page, the editorial page and a couple of other pages-and sends them over. Then there is available a sort of business overseas edition of the Globe and Mail. For the people in external affairs there may be certain confidential bulletins, but they are confidential. But beyond that they must depend upon the European edition of the New York Herald Tribune, the New York Times, or the continental edition of the London Daily Telegraph for news about Canada. I found all our personnel right from the top down, starved for news of Canada. The armed services do a little better. There are two Yukon passenger flights plus four freight flights a week, and they are able to obtain daily copies-sometimes a little delayed by reason of flight schedules-of the Globe and Mail. These arrive at Marville, France. So they have at least one newspaper.
I went into one Canadian embassy in Europe and the latest daily newspaper, outside of those I have mentioned, was an April edition of the Montreal Gazette. Other than that our personnel have to rely upon their own subscriptions.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could raise a point here and put it in the form of a question to the hon. member. Important as is the matter he is discussing- and I recognize its importance-I am wondering whether he is satisfied that it is the type

of problem which should be discussed on interim supply, which is a temporary measure asking for one month's supply for the government to carry on its business until the regular estimates come before the house. I am wondering whether it is not the type of subject, bearing in mind the practice on interim supply bills, which could not better be discussed on the estimates of the department when the minister is here.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this is all very well on the part of the President of the Privy Council, but I would like to say that in the time the minister has taken I could have completed the point I wanted to make.


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The estimates of the Department of External Affairs will come up in anno domini-some time, perhaps in the fall. I am interested in getting some action now in response to the suggestion I am going to make.


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think that what the government should do is to provide for a reasonable number of daily papers from across Canada to be sent to our embassies via the regular service flights which go to Europe.


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly these people are quite as entitled as anybody else to have news about Canada. Europe is crawling with Canadians right now who are hungry for news about Canada but cannot get it.
I suggest we also provide a litter to carry out the hon. gentleman who is hollering to be carried out.
I trust that the ministers concerned will take to heart the suggestions I have made.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few remarks relating to a matter of great concern to a number of my constituents. I rise primarily on account of a telegram I have received from the president of the B.C. command of the Canadian Legion and the local branch to which I belong, as well as a result of resolutions passed by the zone council of the Royal Canadian Legion for Kootenay West. However, before doing so I want to say that while there has been considerable criticism as to the length of debate with respect to the historic "Mr. Pearson" film incident, I suggest this debate would have been considerably shortened had the Prime
Interim Supply
Minister made the speech he made yesterday some years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, pardon me; it seems so long ago since it started. I should have said, had he made the speech some days ago, the debate would have been considerably shortened.
I return to the subject which I wish to speak on for a few minutes this evening. I do so because of the telegrams I have received and because I believe the federal government has a responsibility to the persons concerned, in view of statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. During the discussions in the external affairs committee with respect to the Columbia river treaty, and later while the minister was speaking in the house he indicated that the government was quite assured that the persons who would be directly affected as a result of the flooding would be properly treated. In that respect I want to quote what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the house when dealing with this question. He said, as found on page 3903 of Hansard:
The immense magnitude of the program is most apparent, as are the changes in the face of the land that are bound to take place.
That is no overstatement.
It was known from the beginning that, regardless of what sequence of development was chosen, the changes would be of such magnitude that the face of the land in the Columbia basin would be altered, that immense areas would have to be flooded, that there would be dislocation and that new conditions of living would be imposed in that region. However, there had to be the assurance in the minds of the negotiators, both federal and provincial, that although these changes were necessary the benefits would be far greater and sufficiently great to justify the changes both in the land and in the lives of numbers of people. There had to be the assurance that no one would suffer loss, that there would be alternative programs of settlement and redevelopment on available lands, that there would be redevelopment of communities affected together with compensation to those who would suffer loss sufficient to provide them with a stake sufficient to re-establish themselves.
I re-emphasize those concluding words of the minister when speaking in the debate at the time the house ratified the treaty. Then I go to the minutes of the external affairs committee and I wish to quote what the famous Dr. Keenleyside had to say as found on page 405:
Here we have said from the beginning, and in this we have had the full support of the British Columbia government, that we propose to treat these people fairly, sympathetically and generously?

Interim. Supply
Quite recently the famous Dr. Keenleyside attended public meetings at Edgewood and Nakusp on the Arrow lakes at the request of the local residents. In the first instance he intended to attend only dinner meetings of chambers of commerce, nice, cosy meetings where you do not meet the people. But the people sent him letters demanding public meetings. I give great credit to the women of my constituency who organized these public meetings. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if you get the women in the constituency on your side you have already won. They organized a large public meeting and Dr. Keenleyside was subjected to a barrage of questions from the property owners in the district with respect to the clearing of the basin, with respect to the relocation of roads, the relocation of wharves, the relocation of schools and other community facilities, with respect to the compensation to be paid to the owners of properties to be flooded and with respect to the provisions for the restoration of fisheries which as a result of this flooding will be destroyed for a period of over 20 years.
As a result of the meeting the people were most dissatisfied. Dr. Keenleyside completely failed to answer the questions satisfactorily at this large public meeting in that district. As a result of one meeting one property owner wrote to the B.C. hydro and power authority with respect to the policy to be followed in connection with compensation and so on, and I am going to place the reply on the record:
This is a copy of a letter received from R. W. Gross, manager, land division, B.C. hydro, in answer to the queries of a landowner in the district.
"Dr. Keenleyside has asked me to acknowledge the receipt of and reply to your letter of 20th of April. I am afraid we cannot accept the principle that replacement value is to be paid for improvements affected by the Columbia developments. The basis on which compensation is paid in Canada for private property required for public purposes is clearly established on the value to the owners principle.
Value to the owner is in almost all cases the same as market value. In addition to market value there would, in proper cases, be added an allowance to cover disturbance and moving expenses.
You ask the question, "Why should anyone be forced to go Into debt to replace what they now have"? It might help you to understand the situation if you appreciated that all privately owned property in Canada is held by its present owner subject to the right of any public body possessing power of expropriation to take it over for public purposes.
I want to bring those words to the attention of the great advocates of free enterprise.
In these circumstances the public body is required to pay the owner what his property is worth, not what it may cost him to replace it.

The owner is entitled to be left in the same economic position in terms of cash or property after the taking as he was in before the taking. An owner is not entitled to profit from the taking, which would be the situation if replacement value rather than market value were paid."
I bring this to the attention of the house because it is a complete contradiction of the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Mr. Keenleyside to the committee and also in numerous addresses throughout the country, that these people would be treated in a humane and generous manner. This has caused a great deal of concern to the 2,000 odd people who are going to be affected by this development.
As a result this question was considered by a recent zone council convention of the Royal Canadian Legion representing all branches in Kootenay West. I see the hon. member for Kamloops looking at me and I hope he will begin to stand up for these people and their rights. This matter has caused a great deal of concern, because to get the market value means in many cases, in view of the flooding that is to occur, to get a fraction of what will be required to relocate these people on farms similar to those they now occupy. I received a telegram from the zone council of the Royal Canadian Legion, representing all branches in Kootenay West, which telegram reads as follows:
Sir: The following resolution was duly adopted at the west Kootenay zone convention of the Royal Canadian Legion on June 21st, 1964.
"Whereas the veterans residing in the flood basins of the Columbia river, who are to be affected by the treaty, will be at a disadvantage negotiating with trained officials of the B.C. hydro authority and whereas experience has shown great variance in allowance for similar properties received from hydro authorities for similar areas for no apparent reason, and whereas these affected veterans are in fact negotiating for the interests of Veterans Land Act, National Housing Act, soldier settlement board and others as well as those of their own;
Therefore be it resolved that the honourable minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs be asked to provide immediate professional assistance to veterans affected by the hydro developments of the Columbia river treaty projects."
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I received a telegram from the branch of which I happen to be a member and which I had the honour to organize in 1919. It contains a resolution passed at the zone convention on June 21, 1964.
With regard to displacement to persons living in the area to be flooded by the Columbia development projects whereas it has been stated, in verbal and written form by Dr. H. L. Keenleyside, that market value will be the criterion used in the purchase of property of affected persons and whereas the use of market value can mean a very great hardship on people who cannot afford to pay

the difference between market value and actual cost of replacement and whereas many veterans will be affected, and suffer hardship by the system of market value settlement; Therefore be it resolved that the Royal Canadian Legion support the principle as follows, when a person or persons are faced with the necessity of having to move, where a cash settlement is not suitable, that the hydro authority resettle such persons in accommodation not less favourable to them, at no cost to persons so resettled.
This telegram is signed, F. E. Sadd, secretary of the branch.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this matter is of serious concern to some of these veterans, owing to the circumstances of the district where up to the present time there are few paved highways, where most of the areas are served by country, gravel roads. Many of these people are isolated. The assessed values are somewhat low because they have not had the expensive government services. However, I know of one case where one of these ranchers ships $40,000 worth of cattle per year to the market. Just imagine what will happen to that man if he receives, say, twice the assessed value of the property plus 10 per cent for inconvenience. In that case, I know from personal experience, it would cost in the neighbourhood of $100,000 to buy a similar property.
I know several ranchers in the district, veterans particularly, where in some circumstances these persons have spent their life in this work, and in some cases their fathers have spent their lives, and they are entitled to most generous treatment when they are being displaced by a work for the benefit of the people of Canada. I object most strongly on their behalf to the suggestion made by Dr. Keenleyside of the B.C. hydro, as expressed in the letter that I have quoted. The people who attended this public meeting at Edge-wood and Nakusp were very dissatisfied with the answers given by the co-chairman of B.C. hydro to the numerous questions they raised.
I have been asked to raise this question at the first opportunity. This is the reason I bring it to your attention tonight, Mr. Chairman, and to the attention of the house. I appeal to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to appoint some official to go to these veterans who live along this 150 miles of beautiful waterway, the Switzerland of North America, where there are 50 miles of beaches to be destroyed to provide a water tank for the United States, to give assistance and advice on their legal rights. I know the parliamentary secretary is a very humane sort of person. I trust he brings this situation to the attention of the minister and that the departinterim Supply
ment does appoint someone to represent all these veterans, whether they hold property as a result of purchasing it from the Veterans Land Act administration, from any other agency of government, or whether they purchased their property outright.
In concluding, I say this, that men who have fought for Canada are entitled to be protected by the federal government in circumstances like these and not subjected to, shall I say, the legal, cold blooded treatment it appears they are going to receive from the B.C. power and hydro authority.


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, I did not plan on speaking tonight until I had to listen to a couple of speeches from the leaders of the minor parties accusing us of holding up legislation in this house. I shall come back to them later.
First, I should like to call the attention of this government, as I have attempted to do on several occasions, to what I refer to as the master agency plan. I believe this plan brings hardship and injustice to western Canada. I raised this problem with the former minister of transport, but did not get any reply from him. I went to the board of transport commissioners with regard to the closing of these stations. I could not get satisfaction from the board of transport commissioners. Many communities in western Canada have lost the services of the station agent, and this is bringing difficulty to the people. If I may give an example, about two weeks ago I sent a telegram from the city of Saskatoon to my home. I went 300 miles on the train and beat the telegram to Irma. In another instance, some people in Irma had friends coming to visit them. Those friends sent a telegram and they also beat the telegram to Irma. This is an example of what is happening. We can get no support whatever from the board of transport commissioners. They are just political appointees and are not serving the public. I think we might as well dispose of the board of transport commissioners, because the railways go ahead and do what they want anyway.
Now, the matter of this government and its policies was well covered by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, however, that we have had a government of indecision for over a year now, a government that has been riding on the crest of the wave of prosperity, which resulted from legislation passed by the previous government. We have had too much irresponsibility and retracking. Now, at the end of it all, we have this flag

Interim Supply
resolution placed upon the order paper while more important legislation such as loans for students and help for the Quebec farmers is being delayed.


Gilles Grégoire: It has been said many times.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Chairman, you have a little mouse in the corner. Could you put him in a cage for me?
I know, Mr. Chairman, that these Quebec farmers need help because I have been in their communities. I have found distressing conditions there, and I know these people need help. We had a minister of agriculture prepared to introduce legislation to help these farmers. Twenty years ago these small farmers could go out in the wintertime and cut pulpwood to help their finances, but today that source of revenue is gone.
What has this government done to help these people? They have set up the B. and B. commission which has been travelling across Canada spending millions of dollars. The government is spending millions of dollars to build an island at Montreal for the world fair and at the same time neglecting the small farmers of Quebec. I think legislation to help these people should be introduced before we spend all our time on the flag resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Now, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon at about ten minutes to five we heard the hon. member for Red Deer say, in a sanctimonious way, let us get on with the business of the country. He looked up at the press gallery and I suppose he hoped tomorrow he would see headlines, "Member for Red Deer wants to get on with legislation". I think the people of this country have caught up with him. Last fall he made a television broadcast. I can just see him on television, with his eyelids painted black to give him a sanctimonious look. He even fooled Dick Jackson of the Ottawa Journal. This is what Mr. Jackson wrote:
Say what you will about Social Credit and the quality of the sincerity of leader Robert Thompson, the man surely has a way with words.
Speaking of "Canadian disunity and the lack of national purpose," he saw strong leadership as the only way out, and to provide it, called for...
"...men with clean minds, great hearts, true and ready hands.
...men whom the lust of office does not twist... men whom the spoils of power cannot buy...men who possess opinions and the will and wit to express them...men who have honour and will not lie...tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog in public duty and in private thinking..."


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: My friend says amen. I agree. During that television show I was waiting for the hon. member to pass the collection plate.
I went back to my office and I picked up Liberty magazine, a magazine of religious freedom, printed in Washington, D.C., and at the back of it were these words:
A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands; men whom the lust of office does not kill; men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; men who possess opinions and a will; men who have honour; men who will not lie; men who can stand before a demagogue and damn his treacherous flatteries without winking; tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog in public duty and private thinking.
These are the words of A. G. Holland, a United States author who died in 1881.
Here we have this man standing up and saying let us get on with the country's business but he will not give a man who died in 1881 the credit of his words.
We have heard of summit conferences. It has been said let us hold summit conferences. But we have had a summit conference at Rouyn, Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: Where is that?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: This is a quotation from the Toronto Telegram.


David Réal Caouette: But where is it?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Would you pronounce that, my dear friend?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Rouyn.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: This is from the Toronto Telegram dated June 22, 1962.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, but where from?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Rouyn.


David Réal Caouette: How do you spell it?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It reads:
At a little summit meeting at a summer camp here yesterday the big two of Social Credit swore personal friendship and declared fealty to the party.
Both the hon. member for Red Deer and I can well remember the time back in 1935 when the Social Credit leader, the late William Aberhart, came out and said, "You vote for me and I will give you $25 a month." My hon. friend from Villeneuve did not want to be beaten by that, and so he went through Quebec during the election campaign and said, "I will give you $100." I would remind my hon. friend from Red Deer that over the years since 1935, on the basis of that promise, the provincial Social Credit government owes

me $8,850 without interest. If the hon. member for Red Deer would see to it that I got paid that amount, I would jump up on my desk and holler hallelujah.
At that summit meeting the big two of Social Credit discussed wheat sales to China, and said the party would not approve of any new contract to sell grain to China. That is very interesting. I have another quotation from the Brandon daily Sun "Selling Grain To Reds Wrong-Socred Leader." Then there was another "No Sales to Reds Social Credit Warns." He was not satisfied with that and he went over to New Zealand, and according to the Ottawa Citizen of September 15, 1963, after the Russian wheat deal went through he said:
Canada has fallen into a communist trap with the sale of 228,000,000 bushels of wheat to the Soviet union.
I can tell the hon. member that the farmers of western Canada are happy to sell their wheat. The people of Canada are proud to sell their grain to those hungry people, regardless of what he thinks.
This is a man who talks about getting on with the business of the country. I will give another quotation, this one from the Ottawa Journal of June 23, 1962 "Socred's Thompson Raps Pearson's 'Dirty Politics' ". Oh, how he changes.
Robert N. Thompson, national Socred party leader said Friday that Liberal leader Lester Pearson is playing "dirty politics" in trying to force an early federal election.
Mr. Thompson said at a press conference, that "if there were an election now, Social Credit would win 80 seats, but we are responsible people-"
Look at them today. They are all split up.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have been listening to the hon. member with a great deal of interest but I have serious doubts as to whether his contribution to this debate is relevant. So far as I can judge he is referring to certain statements made by the leader of the Social Credit party, and I cannot see how this can be related to the resolution dealing with interim supply before the committee.


David Réal Caouette: He does not know what he is talking about.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am just replying to remarks made before the supper adjournment. The hon. member got up and suggested the house get on with the country's business, laying the blame on the official opposition for not doing so. I am trying to put the shoe on another foot for a change. This is an open 20220-301
Interim Supply
debate to some extent and I believe I must bring this matter up. I have another quotation from the Edmonton Journal of November 9, 1963 which reads:
National Social Credit Leader Robert Thompson said Friday a number of Liberal members of parliament have signed a petition asking the government to institute Social Credit monetary reform.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: This afternoon we heard the hon. member for Villeneuve speak about the former prime minister, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, with complete irresponsibility, and 1 am trying to place the record straight. When the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm accused him of being a Hitler or a Mussolini he got up on a point of order and complained about it, and I think I am perfectly right in placing these things on the record to back up my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


David Réal Caouette: He never knows what he is saying.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Heil Hitler.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not think that because one hon. member used an epithet in the course of debate regarding another hon. member, this should lead a third hon. member to join in the fray. I would point out that we are considering interim supply and I feel the hon. member would be out of order if he continues in this vein.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief in coming to the assistance of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and explaining to you why he made that remark, and let it go at that. I have many quotations here that I could read, but one will close the matter.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must say I definitely feel the hon. member is not being relevant to the resolution before the committee if he pursues this trend of thought.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Well, in those circumstances I will yield to your ruling since I wish to be co-operative. I would just say that here are clippings from the press which prove me right, because they say "Hitler, Duce, Political Heroes". I could read and read-


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
4740	HOUSE OF
Interim Supply


Lucien Lamoureux: On the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Ville-neuve I must say I did not hear a statement made by the hon. member who was just speaking which imputed motives. If there was such a statement made, perhaps the hon. member would like to repeat it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I was just reading from the Toronto Globe and Mail of August 23, 1962. The headline reads: "Hitler, Duce, Political Heroes, Caouette Says". It goes on to say that in an interview published in Maclean's magazine, asked who his political heroes were, the hon. member replied: "Hitler and Mussolini".


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member is certainly out of order but I do not think he has imputed motives. He is just out of order.


David Réal Caouette: I object strenuously to the remarks uttered by the hon. member who now has the floor. I realize that he is being prompted by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who has proved in the past that he is not more intelligent than required. But the hon. member is not entitled to impute any motive to any member here in this house.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you require the hon. member to withdraw the words he has just uttered.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: "Heil Hitler," Mr. Chairman. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member may not be imputing motives, but he mentioned or read from an article published in a Canadian magazine. At that time, as was stated tonight, I would have said about Hitler and Mussolini that long before the war, they gave their countries an economic impetus that enabled them to develop.
I stated in the same article what the hon. member does not want to read or refrains from reading now, namely that when they declared war, we were not happy at all, we did not agree with them at all.
The hon. member should be honest in his statements and then we will let him continue his remarks as he was doing a little earlier, but he should stop making charges. The same thing holds true for the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who


has been trying, since this afternoon, to impute motives and make charges right and left-I will not say through his hat, because he is not wearing one; I should say through his brains, but he is also deprived of that.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose accepts the statement made by the hon. member for Ville-neuve and we can let it go at that.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Thank you. I will do that. But I have great faith in the editorial writers and the newspapermen of this country and I was just putting a few of their opinions on record. However, I do not wish to take up more of the time of the committee. I just hope the people of Canada will realize that the time has now come to get back to the old two-party system.


George James McIlraith: Earlier this evening, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised the question of the appointment of ministerial staff. He raised two aspects of this matter. First, he reminded us that on June 11, the day before we first presented this resolution for the consideration of the house, I had undertaken in answer to some questions asked by his leader and by others to discuss this subject on interim supply. The other point he raised concerned the legality of certain aspects of appointments by order in council.
Perhaps I might dispose of the legal question first. The hon. member quoted section 71 of the Civil Service Act and sought to argue on this basis that the appointment or employment of any staff of a minister outside Ottawa was illegal. I would simply point out to the hon. member that he has misinterpreted the section he has read. If he would read the whole of the section he would realize, surely, that the word "office" as used in the section refers to the office of the minister, or the minister's establishment as separate from the administrative branch of the department. The Civil Service Act deals, of course, with both types of appointment or employment. That is the distinction which has to be drawn.
The word "office" as, I think, will be apparent to anyone, is used in two or three different contexts. It may mean the physical location of a room or set of rooms in which a person works. The other meaning has to do with a position to which certain duties are attached; a place of trust, authority or service, especially of a public kind. I would think that this latter definition of the meaning of the

word "office" as taken from the Concise Oxford Dictionary is the obvious meaning of the word as used in the section.
Without developing this argument further I would, therefore, point out to the hon. member that his deduction as to the legality of the appointment is not the correct one. I might say that when he raised this point some days ago I immediately looked at the section myself-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) is giving at present a legal advice on a section of the act or the statutes of Canada. If this is what he is doing, I suggest that the President of the Privy Council will also have to tell us who has given him this legal advice and, if so, whether this legal advice comes from the Department of Justice in Ottawa.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for
Lapointe is correct. I was making a legal argument concerning the interpretation of a section of the Civil Service Act. I have made the argument, and if the hon. member had contained himself for one minute longer, I would have answered the question he posed.
Having looked at the section myself, and having come to that conclusion, and having reinforced my view of it by turning to the Oxford dictionary as to the meaning of the word "office", I then asked my colleague, the Minister of Justice, for an opinion on the matter and he, as is his responsibility, or duty, did give me an opinion; and it was along the lines I have indicated.
Perhaps before I give the information I have undertaken to give to the committee, I should clear up one point concerning one of the persons whose name was mentioned several times in the house during the question period. I refer to Mr. Cote. I did not know this at the time, or I should have immediately brought it to the attention of the house, but on the day these questions were asked, Mr. Cote was present in the gallery along with other ministers' staff in the official place assigned to them. He performs the greater part of his duties in Ottawa, not at Baie des Sables. It is true that he does go to the constituency at various times, but not for the major part of the time during which he is employed. I merely make this clear out of fairness to the individual involved; he still does, on occasions, perform services outside 20220-301J
Interim Supply
Ottawa. I merely wanted to clear up that case.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If that is correct, why does the order in council state that Mr. Cote is located at Baie des Sables? Is it the intention of the minister to have the order in council changed?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is a very good question. When the man was appointed, his home address was Baie des Sables. That is where he came from, and they put that as his address in the order in council. In going through orders in council that go back for some years, I found, if you like to call it that, some inconsistencies in their wording. However, I make nothing of that point, other than to clarify the position of the particular man.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, would the minister allow me to ask him a question?


George James McIlraith: I would very much prefer, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would allow me to put on the record the statement I promised the house several days ago. Then I would be glad to answer all the questions on the subject as fully as I can.


David Réal Caouette: But, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor, and if he does not want to reply to a question at this time, he should be allowed to complete his statement.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, this is the fifth day on which this interim supply resolution has been before the committee, and I have been ready and available to answer questions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is the fourth day.


George James McIlraith: Well, I have been in the chamber during the whole of the time this interim supply resolution has been before the committee, and I am quite ready to answer all the questions I can. I did promise the house that I would answer some of the questions that were asked a few days ago on this whole subject, and I would like to do that now.
The stationing outside Ottawa of members of the staffs of ministers of the crown is

Interim Supply
consistent with past practice and has considerations of economy and efficiency to support it. From the records, it is clear that ministers have maintained members of their staffs at places outside Ottawa since 1935- and I do not know how far back the practice does go, but that was as far back as I was able to get the records-and possibly for many years before that. Ministers have traditionally maintained offices in federal public buildings in cities like Montreal, Quebec city, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg.


Gilles Grégoire: And Matane.


George James McIlraith: In 1956-57, six members of ministers' staffs were employed in Vancouver, Windsor, Montreal and Lunenburg. Under the Conservative administration the number of members of ministers staffs working outside Ottawa was doubled. During the period 1958 to 1963, 12 persons were employed in Regina; Hamilton; Fredericton; St. Gilles, Quebec; Montreal; Middleton, Nova Scotia; Brandon and Mont Laurier.


Gilles Grégoire: And Matane.


George James McIlraith: At present there are 15 persons employed full time and one person part time at ministers' offices at Quebec city, Bathurst, Montreal, Toronto, Sorel, Niagara Falls, St. Boniface and Vancouver.
It is interesting to note that the Glassco commission has recently pointed out that only 24 per cent of the full time federal public service work in the Ottawa-Hull area. Three quarters of the public servants are dispersed throughout the rest of Canada, largely in 14 urban centres from St. John's to Victoria. As the Glassco commission observed, "How these scattered activities are organized and staffed, how their performance is appraised and their effectiveness ensured are matters of importance to the economy and efficiency of the federal administration and to quality of service received by the public". The commission asserted that "more systematic and energetic measures are needed to encourage the freer movement of public servants between headquarters and field establishments".
Since the Civil Service Act, 1961, the staffs of ministers of the crown are appointed in accordance with section 71(1) of the Civil Service Act. That section reads:
A minister may appoint his executive assistant and his private secretary, and other persons to be employed in the office of a minister shall be appointed by the governor in council.

The function of certain staff members who are provided for ministers of the crown, and for the leader of the opposition, is to relieve these ministers and the opposition leader from certain routine tasks and thus enable them to discharge more effectively their ministerial and public responsibilities. The posting of a member of the minister's staff to a centre outside Ottawa, whether in the minister's constituency or in some other area, has been found to improve the efficiency of service to the public and to reduce claims for travelling expenses. Under the present administration, no members of ministers' staffs stationed outside Ottawa are drawing an expense account.
To ensure that members of ministers' staffs fulfil their responsibilities of assisting the ministers and do not merely undertake routine political tasks on behalf of party or local organizations, the present government has already instituted the practice of requiring that proposed appointments be reviewed by treasury board before going forward to the governor in council for approval. In its review, treasury board ensures that the total size of a minister's staff, wherever located, remains within reasonable limits bearing in mind the size of the departmental organization.
It is not as simple a question as it may seem whether there should be a rule that all members of the staff of ministers should be obliged to live in Ottawa. This has not been the rule in the past. It may well be that ministers could be relieved of much of their obligation to deal with the manifold problems of their constituents by a secretary or a stenographer living in their constituency at a good deal smaller expense than would be the case if that employee were obliged to live in Ottawa.
I must add, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister has instructed treasury board to examine into the whole question of ministerial assistants working outside Ottawa. He has asked treasury board to report on how this practice, as it has developed over the years, can be brought under strict control so that abuses, if any, can be prevented, and whether there are any advantages to the public service under the practice which should be retained under the control referred to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, before the minister sits down could I ask him if he could have some information ready for us in the morning regarding the 15 full time persons and one part time person presently employed

by ministers outside Ottawa. Perhaps he could tell us the locations and in how many cases these persons are actually located in the constituency of the minister.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to give that information. I would point out that there are very, very few of them in the constituencies of the ministers; they are mainly in the major cities. But I will have that detailed information as soon as I can get it. I should point out, also, that there is a possibility of slight inaccuracies in some of the earlier information because I have had to reconstruct it as best I could from old orders in council, departmental records and things of that sort.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader about the order of business for tomorrow, and perhaps for Monday.


Guy Favreau: Tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, the government will call as its first item of business the motion concerning the extension of the hours of sitting. It will be a slightly modified version, on which I understand there will be agreement. Then we hope to complete the debate on interim supply, after which we will proceed with the debate on the flag resolution.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, during the question
period I asked the leader of the Quebec Liberals, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) a question.
As the province of Quebec has about 38 per cent of all Canada unemployed, I asked him whether he would use his influence to obtain from the government that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials be abolished, not only to help the economic recovery of the province of Quebec and favour the building
25, 1964	4743
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion industry, but to improve the Canadian economy in a general way.
Mr. Speaker, all hon. members are aware of the many protests the government received from municipalities, school boards, industries, labour unions, in short from all provincial governments about that 11 per cent tax, which jeopardizes Canadian economy to a great extent.
Mr. Speaker, we have to face not only winter unemployment but summer unemployment as well, and I may say that, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, building activities have decreased by at least 60 per cent, in comparison to former years, and just because of that 11 per cent tax.
Mr. Speaker, we trust-and I trust-that the Minister of Justice will make his colleagues in the cabinet understand the importance of eliminating that tax as soon as possible, as it is most prejudicial to the Canadian economy. I therefore ask the minister to be firm. It is alright to belong to a political party and to be a member of the cabinet. But if the Minister of Justice would urge his party, and more particularly the members of the cabinet to eliminate that 11 per cent sales tax, I can tell him that he would be greatly admired by the Canadian population, and more particularly by the people of Quebec.
People in Canada are disappointed by this government's actions. The first 60 days of Liberal rule were to be miraculous; there was to be a remedy for all evil. But those first 60 days were rather prejudicial to the Canadian economy, because that 11 per cent tax brought about a slow-down in its development.
The housing contractors are roused and alarmed. Building is decreasing; the number of bankruptcies is constantly on the increase, more particularly in the building field, because the profit margin is very slim at this time, more particularly since the government imposed that famous 11 per cent tax, which runs counter to every economic principle. Indeed, I defy the Minister of Justice to name one organization in Canada supporting the 11 per cent tax.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I hear protests from government members, but if they are really aware of their responsibility, if they want to give priority to the interests of the country over that of their party, they should have been the first ones to protest when the

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion present government levied that 11 per cent tax which proved to be disastrous to the Canadian economy.
The province of Quebec has the monopoly of unemployment. What is the co-operation between the Quebec Liberal government and the Liberal government in Ottawa? In view of the serious worsening of the unemployment situation in the province of Quebec, I pray the Minister of Justice, on behalf of the people of Quebec who suffer from unemployment, will use his influence, if he has any, in order that this 11 per cent tax be abolished so that the economy be boosted not only in the province of Quebec but throughout Canada.


Mr. E. J. Benson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize and respect the hon. member's concern for unemployment. This government has been greatly concerned about the employment situation in Canada, and contrary to what was done by the previous government has indeed done a great deal about it. If he will reflect over the past year, there has been the extension of the winter works program, the extension of vocational training assistance, the $500 housing bonus paid for winter building, the program with regard to designated areas, including the three year tax holiday, the two year write-off on machinery, the five year write-off on buildings, along with double depreciation that has been granted on new equipment across the whole of Canada. I think the people agree that this government has done a good deal with respect to unemployment. Indeed, the success of our program is shown by the fact that unemployment in Canada is now lower than it has ever been since the last time that a Liberal government was in power.
The hon. member's attempt to relate unemployment to the sales tax extension is, I maintain, entirely unwarranted. There has been a great expansion of building in Quebec and in the whole of Canada. I challenge him to support the figure he just quoted of a 60 per cent reduction in construction in Quebec. I should like to refer the hon. member to my speech of February 25, 1964 in this respect and also to the Financial Post of February 22, 1964.
I should also like to refer him to the publication, National Accounts, Income and Expenditure, for the first quarter of 1964, published by the dominion bureau of statistics. I quote from page 3 thereof:

-the value of residential construction put in place in the first quarter was about 25 per cent higher than in the preceding period.
I quote further from page 7:
Spending on fixed capital, including housing, provided the major impetus to production in the first quarter and the rise of 11 per cent carried total capital expenditures to an annual rate of $8.8 billion after discounting seasonal factors.
If the hon. member will recall, I stated in my speech on February 25, 1964 that such expenditures would amount to $8 billion this year and I am pleased that that figure is going to be surpassed and will reach $8.8 billion, almost the biggest construction year in Canada's history. I quote further from the same page of the report:
The demand for business fixed capital absorbed 19 per cent of gross national product compared with 17 per cent in the first quarter of 1963. The annual rate of housing completions rose to an unsurpassed level of 215.8 thousand in the first quarter as the final qualifying date for the government's winter housebuilding incentive bonus was approached.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.



TRANSPORT


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, during the question period, I also asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) whether the government intended to reconsider its decision, so that the railway between Ste Anne des Monts and Matane would be built.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read a letter I received from the chamber of commerce of Gasp6-Nord Inc., on June 22, 1964:
Mr. Louis-Joseph Pigeon,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
Please find herewith copy of a clarifying statement and a resolution of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe-Nord Inc. concerning the proposed building of a railway between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts.
The board of directors of the chamber of commerce has asked me to offer you their most sincere thanks for your support of that project. Those who want to see the development of our beautiful Gaspe peninsula have noted your firm and constant support for our project and they greatly appreciate it.
We hope that you will have a further opportunity to support that project which we believe to be essential to the development of our area.
Yours truly,
Gaspe-Nord Chamber of Commerce Inc.
Mr. Gaston Mainville, secretary.


David Réal Caouette: To whom was the letter addressed?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the president of
the chamber of commerce of Gaspe-Nord, Inc. sent me an excerpt of the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors held at Ste Anne des Monts, on Wednesday June 17, 1964.
The chamber of commerce of Gaspe-Nord Inc. wishes to rectify a statement recently published in various newspapers, including Le Soleil, to the effect that the chamber of commerce of Gaspe-Nord, Inc. had definitely abandoned the idea of a railroad being built between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts.


David Réal Caouette: To whom?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The board of directors of the chamber of commerce of Gaspe-Nord never took that stand and there has never been any question of abandoning that project. On the contrary, the chamber of commerce continues to support the idea and is convinced that such a railroad is necessary for the development of that area. The chamber of commerce is in favour of the construction of roads and seaports, but it does not give up the idea of a railroad because roads and seaports are necessary with or without a railroad.


David Réal Caouette: To whom is it addressed?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is further moved by Claude Jourdain, supported by Maurice Lefrangois and unanimously carried that the chamber of commerce of GaspS-Nord Inc. ask the federal government to extend by at least one year the expiration date of the bill which, at present, is set for December 31, 1964.


David Réal Caouette: To whom?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That copy of this statement and resolution be sent to the Minister of Transport, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, Hon. Rene Tremblay, Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, Mr. Alexandre Cyr, M.P. for Gaspe, the newspaper Le Soleil-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -to the newspaper Le Soleil, to the newspaper Le Voyageur and to the chamber of commerce of the Gaspe peninsula.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve rises on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when somebody has the floor, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm always rises to interrupt him or prevent him from speaking. Now, we have been asking him for at least five minutes to whom this letter was addressed and he does not answer. According to the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion way he acts, it seems we are not entitled to know.
So I ask permission to put a question to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm. May I be granted this privilege?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to be kind enough to make allowance for the time taken by the hon. member for Villeneuve in order to put his question and for the time that will be needed for the answer I shall give him. In that case, I am prepared to give the hon. member an answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I take the liberty of drawing the attention of the hon. member on the fact that if he replies to a question asked, the time he takes for that purpose will naturally be charged to him.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Well, I shall not answer that question, but I hope an allowance will be made for the time taken by the hon. member for Villeneuve.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to please maintain some order in this house. After all, we are not at a Social Credit convention, but in the House of Commons.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm says he is not at a Social Credit convention; I should like to point out to him that a Social Credit convention is much more to the point than the behaviour of the hon. member for Joliette in this house. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is doing all he can to-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is no question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: -he is doing all he can-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Villeneuve has a question of privilege, he should state his question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Personal?


Auguste Choquette: And confidential.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Not confidential.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is making charges at random-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is no question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: -as usual. We are not concerned here with the Social Credit convention
4748	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
but with logical and comprehensible re- Mr. Caouette: -as the hon. member for marks-	Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The chamber of commerce said that not I.


David Réal Caouette: -something which the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is unable to do.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is the chamber of commerce not I.


David Réal Caouette: To whom was this letter addressed?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You may read Hansard tomorrow morning, when you are less excited.
Mr. Speaker, this concludes the excerpt from the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of Gaspe-Nord Inc., held at Ste Anne des Monts on Wednesday, June 17, 1964:
That copy of this clarifying statement and of this resolution-


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your cooperation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that he has the co-operation of the Chair. He only has to proceed with his remarks, I can hear him very well.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I do not agree with you on this point, Mr. Speaker. Members on that side of the house make comments all the time. I ask you to please apply the rules on both sides of the house. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) and the hon. member for Shawinigan are always making remarks.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, I represent the riding of St. Maurice-Lafleche.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that the rules are applied equitably and fairly on both sides of the house and I ask him to proceed with his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege or a point of order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is simply unbearable. As soon as he hears someone say a word, he complains that he is interrupted.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is no question of privilege or point of order.


David Réal Caouette: There is no other hon. member of the house so provoking and uncompromising-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: And he is always the first to complain-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I have the cooperation of all hon. members, from both sides of the house, so that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm may finish his question?


David Réal Caouette: He should speak intelligently.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I ask again for your co-operation. I conclude my quotation:
That copy of this statement and this resolution be sent to the Minister of Transport, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, Hon. Bene Tremblay, Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, Mr. Alexandre Cyr, member for Gaspe, and to Le Soleil and Le Voya-geur, and la chambre de commerce regionale de la Gaspesie.
Gaston Mainville, secretary.
Mr. Speaker, I quote from Hansard of the House of Commons for March 12, 1962, page 1703. This is what Mr. Chevrier said just before the bill was passed:
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is in favour of this project-
If you refer to pages 1707 and 1708 of Hansard for the same date, you will see that at the time all Liberal members voted in favour of the construction of a branch line between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts. Why, after taking office, did the Liberals cancel that project which had practically received unanimous approval in the house?
This is a violation of freedom-


David Réal Caouette: What was the year?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is violating everything which was done by the previous government. A government has no right to cancel an almost unanimous decision of the House of Commons-including the Liberal members- and to deprive the Gaspe peninsula of its railways.
The Gaspe-Nord chamber of commerce may be assured, that on this side of the house, we will fight each and every day to obtain a reversal of the government's decision and the implementation of the bill which was accepted by the house, when we were in power, in the sole interest of the Gaspe peninsula.


David Réal Caouette: You are better on this side of the house than when you were sitting opposite.


Mr. J. C. Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: On Thursday,
April 23, 1964, at this same time, the same hon. member asked the same question, made the same statement and used the same argu-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ments. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply is the same.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.



Friday, June 26, 1964