1964-06-24

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST DAY, QUEBEC  DISCOVERY DAY, NEWFOUNDLAND

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity to extend our best wishes to our French speaking friends at this time when they are all celebrating together their national holiday, the feast of St. John the Baptist.
This year, I know, their national holiday has been extended to exceptional proportions. The people of French Canada are celebrating their origins and asserting their identity during a whole week. This is all to their credit. It is proof positive of their dynamic strength, their vitality and their attachment to traditions.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this attachment to tradition is an important element in a country that wishes to progress, but with ease and stability, toward greatness. In our country an even more indispensable condition is the establishment of a spirit of unity among people of all races and all sections of our country so we can give the world an example of good will and mutual understanding. We think of this good will and understanding, Mr. Speaker, as we congratulate our French speaking colleagues in the house and our French speaking fellow Canadians on this, their special day.
The feast day of St. John the Baptist has an additional meaning in the history of Canada, for it was on this day 466 years ago that the redoubtable explorer John Cabot-or Jean Cabot or Giovanni Caboto, as you will- had the great fortune to discover the land that became the ancient colony and is now the Canadian province of Newfoundland, to which stalwart and courageous people we also pay our tribute of respect today.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join
with the Prime Minister on this occasion and it gives me great pleasure to extend to all French speaking Canadians my heartfelt congratulations on this their national holiday, the feast of St. John the Baptist.

Sir, it is very seldom that the Prime Minister and I have the opportunity to reveal in such a striking manner our capacity to express ourselves in the French language. This is an occasion not only for those who are French Canadians but for all of us to pause in solemn recollection of the splendid contribution they have made to Canada. It is an occasion on which we share the memory of that faith that made possible the preservation of this portion of the North American continent under the British crown, and the contribution since which continues to grow and expand. It is well to recall on an occasion such as this that in 1864, none other than Sir George Etienne Cartier, speaking on behalf of those of French origin, said that without confederation the result would be the absorption, progressive and inevitable, of Canada into the American orbit as part of the United States of America. Whether overtly through formal recognition or not, there would have been absorption in fact, economically, socially and culturally but for the confederation that binds us. We on this occasion join with our compatriots of the French race and language and bid for them an equal partnership which is essential to the preservation of the unity of our country.
The Prime Minister mentioned as well the fact that this is Newfoundland Discovery day. This reminded me of the fact that over that long period of time since John Cabot made his discovery the union jack has floated over that country, whether as a colony or as a province. We join on this day in paying our tribute to those from Newfoundland who today, having joined us, are making their contribution to the unity of our country which was the hope of the fathers of confederation and which was not achieved until more than 80 years thereafter.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I visited the dentist and he told me that he had succeeded in preventing me from speaking for at least 48

St. John the Baptist Day hours. I regret to say he has been only partially successful. However, I shall have sufficient difficulty in saying anything in English without trying to mangle the French language at this particular time.
I do want, on behalf of the New Democratic party, to join with those who have spoken in extending our congratulations to our French Canadian colleagues in this house and our French Canadian compatriots across Canada in this celebration of St. John the Baptist day. We rejoice in the pride which they take in their culture and traditions. I am sure that all of us were inspired this week by the words of Cardinal Leger in which he set forth, in moderate terms and with far-seeing vision, the hope that the French people and English people would work out the necessary modus vivendi to build here in Canada a great country.
We join with all those who on this day are celebrating the feast day of the French Canadian patron saint. We trust that their pride in their race, their language and their culture will have every reason to continue to grow from year to year.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure, on behalf of the members of our group-particularly those from the province of Quebec-and in the name of all my fellow countrymen, to sincerely thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) for the feelings they expressed toward all French Canadians on this occasion of the feast of St. John the Baptist, patron saint of French Canadians from Quebec and all other provinces in Canada.
All French Canadians, throughout Canada, are celebrating today the feast of their patron saint. Of course, those celebrations are specially prominent in the province of Quebec and this year it was the intent of the organizers of this feast day, all across Quebec, that it be even more imposing through diversified celebrations which got under way last Saturday and will be going on until next Saturday, while reaching their peak this evening. Such an exceptional pageant on this occasion is a mark of a sound vitality within the French-Canadian people who, more than ever, are conscious of the role they must and can play and of the importance of their contribution in the development and the establishment of
[Mr. Douglas.)
a Canada strong and united in the diversity of its parts.
The magnitude of today's celebrations in Quebec must in no way be interpreted as a sign of hostility toward anyone or anything.
It is only the evidence of our will to contribute to the making of Canada, my country, our country, a place where it will be good to live together harmoniously.
But, in order to achieve that harmony as soon as possible, we must show on both sides some understanding and moderation.

Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have spoken a few words in French I would like to attempt to say something in English. I would like to quote from an editorial in today's Montreal Gazette to bring to the attention of the house what it said about French Canada and about this particular day:
The vigour of French Canada today is the vigour of a society seeking a new and progressive identity. And if this vigour sometimes seems to have about it a great hunger, this is not surprising.
It went on to say:
During the past few years, there have been some, including some of marked talent, who have followed paths of extremism. But the over-all movement of French Canada has been one of positive and purposeful advance. Every French Canadian, and every friend of French Canada, can take pride in what has been done.
This year the spirit of St. John the Baptist day is one of confidence. It is a spirit that is fully justified. For this is the spirit of French Canada today. The paths of progress are open. And French Canadians are following them as never before in their history.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make these words mine, and I would like to have it that Canada will be strong if Quebec, where one third of all Canadians live, is strong, and that is how sincere Quebeckers wish it. I would also like to extend my sincere congratulations to our fellow Canadians from Newfoundland and say that we share with them this particular day, June 24, as one of the most important days for the people of Quebec and Newfoundland. I also hope that, as the years go round, St. John the Baptist will become the patron saint of all Canadians.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of our group, on behalf of all hon. members-and I think that unanimity is not a problem on that matter-as well as on behalf of all French Canadians, we wish to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the leader of the official

opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and others who expressed their best wishes to the French Canadians on the occasion of our national holiday.
This year the celebrations are on a larger scale than usual and express our nation's maturity. A sculpture wrought in solid metal, has replaced the sheep to show our solidity, our vitality and our energy.
Mr. Speaker, the French Canadian nation will live on because it has faith in its future. We are confident that we have made to Canada and North America a vast cultural contribution which can only benefit all the citizens of this continent.
Our two great cultures existing side by side in Canada are the patent evidence that we can make of our country a powerful country where the true human values, the cultural values will be put in the foreground, making of Canada a still greater country because it will have as a basis the greatest of all values, culture.

I should like to take this opportunity to invite all members of this house to the celebration of St. John the Baptist day in Montreal so that each and every one of them may be able to see for themselves what is going on in French Canada today. They will see, amid all the demonstrations and parades tonight, that French Canada is full of life and is ready to contribute to the development of a great and powerful country, Canada.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: It
was not my intention to rise on this occasion, but I cannot ignore the statement made by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Les-sard) when he said he hoped that St. John the Baptist would become the saint of all Canada. May I say to him, sir-

Mr. Speaker, pardon me if I cannot speak French.

-that we honour the provincial day in Quebec and all that it means to French Canadians.
I am sorry the Prime Minister and his friends said "provincial" instead of "national" day. I tie the two together. May the day come in Canada when it is not the day of St. John the Baptist, St. Andrew, St. George, St. Patrick or any other, but all of them together in honesty, integrity, and sincerity, believing in all that it really and truly means.
20220-296J
Questions

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's remarks at the commencement of today's proceedings may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is aware that the Cape Breton historical society is today celebrating, complete with bagpipe bands and all that goes with a rousing Cape Breton celebration, the landing of John Cabot on Cape Breton island? Is he also aware that this is an annual event?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that serious omission in my statement of which, of course, I was aware.



PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of special committee on procedure and organization-Mr. Speaker.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-7 (from the Senate), to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Marlineau: Has the Minister of Justice or his department received representations on the proposed construction of a penal institution for women at Cornwall, Ontario and, if so (a) by what person or association were these representations made (b) what type of representations were made in each case?


Mr. Macdonald:: (a) The following persons or associations made representations on the proposed construction of a penal institution for women at Cornwall, Ontario:
The Elizabeth Fry Society of Kingston; The Elizabeth Fry Society of Ontario; The Elizabeth Fry Society of Toronto; The Elizabeth Fry Society of Thunder Bay; The John Howard Society of Canada; The John Howard Society of Alberta; The John Howard Society of Cornwall; The John Howard Society

Questions
of Ontario; The John Howard Society of New Brunswick; The John Howard Society of Kingston; The John Howard Society of Thunder Bay; The Canadian Corrections Association; The National Council of Women of Canada; The Junior League of Toronto; The Salvation Army; The Fairlawn United Church Women of Toronto; The United Church Women of Toronto; The Ashbury and West United Church of Toronto; The University Women's Club of Don Mills, Ont.; The University Women's Club of Kingston; The Rotary Club of Cornwall; The Board of Trade of Cornwall; The Civil Service Association of Canada; The Canadian Association of Social Workers of Kingston; The Local Council of Women of Kingston; The Big Sister Counselling Service of Toronto; The University Women's Club of North York; The Canadian Federation of University Women; The United Congregation of South Peel, Port Credit, Ont. (supported by 86 persons)
Mrs. K. Healey, Mrs. A. N. Burgess, Mrs.
V.	A. Cartwright, Mrs. G. F. Glendenning, Miss M. Hogg, Mrs. J. Dineen, Mrs. V. Hel-ston, Mrs. W. Hall, Mrs. H. R. Ellis, Mrs. D. Mackaie, Mrs. E. Brock Rideaut, Miss B. C. Renoir, Mrs. W. Kirkpatrick, Mrs. A. L. Clark, Mrs. E. Mathews, Mrs. C. Ronson, Mrs. M. Renwick, Mrs. D. Godfrey, Mrs. B. Harris, Mr. L. H. Ritchie, Mrs. M. R. Bain, Mrs. M. Robinson, Mrs. G. Carruthers, Mrs. C. C. Gildens, Mrs. J. Hodgson, Mrs. J. Ross, Mrs. M. Thomas, Miss E. Hamilton, Mrs. R.
W.	Nicholls, Mrs. E. Snow, Mr. and Mrs. J. A. Fraudsen, Rev. A. Thaw, Mr. and Mrs.
A.	Hapos, Miss R. M. Rutherson, Mr. L. Francis, M.P., Mr. R. M. McDermert, Mr. C. Sullivan, Miss B. Hargraft, Mr. F. Mans, Mrs. P. Williams, Mrs. J. N. Conlin, Mrs. R. E. Gibson, Mrs. J. Pugh, Mrs. H. K. Hill, Mrs. J.
B.	Taylor, Mrs. A. G. Jocelyn, Mrs. C. Mc-Vean, Mrs. D. W. Veiger, Mr. and Mrs. S. Mackay, Mrs. F. Blair-Middleton, Mrs. B. A. Herlunson, Mr. D. A. Humphries, Mr. M. J, Moreau, M.P., Mrs. M. Hall, Mrs. M. B. Osborne, Mrs. J. Carruthers, Mrs. J. W. Hardie, Mr. and Mrs. R. MacFeeters, Mrs. E. Gaud-reau, Mrs. L. Lockwood, Mrs. T. E. White, Mrs. W. D. Tucker, Mrs. G. M. Hargraft, Mrs. L. C. W. Armstrong, Mr. W. Guthentag, Mrs. J. B. Tinker, Mrs. D. H. Butler, Mrs. J. Ry-kert, Mrs. J. M. Tracy, Mrs. S. W. Kane, Miss
C.	Feeter, Mrs. A. F. Lambert, Mr. and Mrs. G. Wakely, Mrs. L. Lapierre, Mrs. O. F. Mack-lem, Mrs. J. Stride, Mrs. D. C. Watson, Mr. and Mrs. G. Ives, Mrs. F. Bower, Mr. J. Wood, Mrs. M. Little.


DUMPING OF RAW SEWAGE INTO GREAT LAKES
Mr. McMillan: In connection with the strong recommendation by the international joint commission to cease dumping raw sewage and other waste products in the great lakes system (a) what program has been decided on in Canada to this end (b) how many American and Canadian communities dump raw sewage, directly or indirectly, into the great lakes system (c) have the American people assumed any time limit on any program to clean up the water in the great lakes system by sewage disposal plants, elimination of detergents and other wastes etc.?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: (a) The I.J.C.
program relates only to the connecting channels of the great lakes where surveillance of water quality is actively maintained by the commission's technical advisory board.
In Ontario, jurisdiction over matters relating to water pollution abatement rests with the Ontario water resources commission, which, under its act, has the power to control and regulate the collection, production, treatment, storage, transmission, distribution and use of water for public purposes and to make orders with respect thereto. The commission maintains an energetic and effective program which includes a constant review of those municipalities and industries which are deficient in the provision of waste treatment facilities.
Pollution of Canadian waters by oil from vessels is covered by the oil pollution prevention regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. The question of providing appropriate regulations covering other waste from vessels is presently being studied.
(b)	At the present time, ten Canadian communities having a total population of 232,850, discharge untreated or insufficiently treated sewage into the great lakes. Similar information regarding U.S. communities has been requested from the U.S. authorities and will be provided as soon as available.
(c)	Information is being requested from the U.S. authorities and will be provided when available.


SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES, NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	How many justices of the superior court are there in the constituencies of northwestern Quebec, that is, the constituencies of Villeneuve, Chapleau and Pontiac-Temiscamingue?
2.	How many cases are pending at the present time before the superior court of this judicial district?
3.	Is there a sufficient number of judges of the superior court in this district and, if not, is it proposed to make any further appointments in the near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Two justices of the superior court reside in the constituencies of Villeneuve, Chapleau and Pontiac-Temisca-mingue.
2.	The administration of justice is a provincial matter. Therefore, the number of cases pending is not known by the Department of Justice.
3.	Determination of the need for additional judges is the responsibility of the provincial authorities.


TENDERS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE REPLACEMENT, CUMBERLAND, N.S.
Mr. Armstrong: 1.	What firms in Cumberland were invited to tender on the replacement of motor vehicles for the R.C.M.P. detachments at Amherst, Pugwash, Springhill and Parrsboro between March 25, 1962 and March 25, 1963 and what dealerships did these firms represent?
2.	What firms were invited to tender during such period by the abovementioned detachments for the overhaul and repair of their motor vehicles?
3.	From what firms in Cumberland were these detachments authorized, during such period, to purchase oil and gasoline?
4.	Were any firms in Cumberland excluded, during such period, from the opportunity to tender on the replacement of motor vehicles, repair and overhaul of motor vehicles, and on the sales of oil and gasoline, for these detachments and, if so, what firms?


Mr. Favreau:: 1. Amherst and Pugwash detachments: Cumberland Equipment Ltd., Amherst, N.S., Pontiac; D. A. Casey Ltd., Amherst, N.S., Ford; Tantramar Motors Ltd., Amherst, N.S., Chevrolet.
Springhill detachment:	All bona fide
dealers in Springhill representing Chrysler Canada Ltd., Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. and General Motors Products of Canada Ltd.
Parrsboro detachment:	Sargent's garage,
Parrsboro, N.S., Chevrolet; Cameron & Wilson, Parrsboro, N.S., Plymouth; Macintosh Motors Ltd., Parrsboro, N.S., Ford.
2.	Amherst and Pugwash detachments: Cumberland Equipment Ltd., Amherst, N.S.;
D.	A. Casey Ltd., Amherst, N.S., Tantramar Motors Ltd., Amherst, N.S.
Springhill detachment:	All bona fide
dealers in Springhill representing Chrysler Canada Ltd., Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. and General Motors Products of Canada Ltd.
Parrsboro detachment:	Sargent's garage,
Parrsboro, N.S.; Cameron & Wilson, Parrsboro, N.S.; Macintosh Motors Ltd., Parrsboro, N.S.
Questions
3.	Amherst detachment: D. A. Casey Ltd., Amherst, N.S.; O'Neill's Taxi Ltd., Amherst, N.S.; Wheaton service station, Amherst, N.S.; Weatherbee service station, Amherst, N.S.; Chapman's service station, Amherst, N.S.; Earl Steven's service station, Amherst, N.S.; Tantramar Motors Ltd., Amherst, N.S.
Pugwash detachment: Smith's service station, Pugwash, N.S.; Lester Allen service station, Pugwash, N.S.
Springhill detachment:	Carter's garage,
Springhill, N.S.; Letcher's garage, Springhill, N.S.
Parrsboro detachment:	Sargent's garage,
Parrsboro, N.S.; Macintosh Motors Ltd., Parrsboro, N.S.
4.	All other firms in Cumberland county were excluded in the sense that only the firms abovementioned were invited to tender..


SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES, QUEBEC CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	How many superior court judges are there in the electoral districts of Compton-Frontenac, Megantic, Sherbrooke and Beauce?
2.	Has the Department of Justice information concerning the number of cases presently pending before the superior court in that judicial district?
3.	Is there a sufficient number of superior court judges in that district and will there be further appointments in the near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Four justices of the superior court reside in the electoral districts of Compton-Frontenac, Megantic, Sherbrooke and Beauce.
2.	No.
3.	Determination of the need for additional judges is the responsibility of the provincial authorities.


DEEPENING OF GREAT LAKES CHANNELS
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Since construction of the St. Lawrence seaway began in 1954, what channels in the great lakes system above lake Ontario have been deepened and what are the dates and particulars thereof?
2.	Which projects have been undertaken by United States authorities?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	The Welland canal was deepened during the period 1955-59 to provide a 27 foot minimum depth throughout, with an extra depth to 29 feet in rock areas.
2.	All channel deepening above lake Erie has been done by United States authorities.

Questions


ARDA COMMITTEES, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Has the Minister of Forestry, who is responsible for ARDA, received representations concerning the formation of ARDA committees formed within parish organizations, UCC groups, or other groups in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac and, if so (a) what groups have made their existence known (b) to what parishes do they belong, and (c) what was the nature of the representations made in each case.
2.	Within the departmental organization dealing with ARDA (a) who takes care of relations between the department and those parish committees (b) what are the various services provided to guide them in their work and to co-operate with them (c) are there any information services for this purpose (d) are there any technical services available to such committees?

Answer: 1. No.
2. (a) There are no direct relations between the federal government and the parish committees in question, (b) No services are provided. (c) Yes, only general information services are provided, (d) No.


VETERANS HOSPITALS, QUEBEC
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	To what veterans hospital are veterans from the constituency of Compton-Frontenac sent in the province of Quebec?
2.	During the last two years, how many veterans from Compton-Frontenac were treated in a veterans hospital?
3.	How many permanent patients are there in veterans hospitals in Quebec?
4.	On the average, during the past three years, how many temporary patients were there in veterans hospitals in Quebec?
5.	How much has it cost the federal government to operate veterans hospitals in Quebec in each of the last three years?


Mr. Teillei:: 1. (a) To Queen Mary veterans hospital, Montreal, P.Q., if resident in county of Compton, (b) To Ste Foy hospital, Ste Foy, Quebec, P.Q., if resident in county of Frontenac.
2.	It would not be possible to provide the answer to this question from our records.
3.	As at midnight May 31, 1964, there were 1,098 chronic and domiciliary care patients in D.V.A. hospitals in the province of Quebec.
4.	We are unable to provide an average for the past three years, however, as at midnight May 31, 1964, there were 582 patients in D.V.A. hospitals in the province of Quebec who had been in hospital less than 60 days. This represents approximately 34 per cent of the total patient load at that time.
IMr. Pickersgill.]
5.	Gross	Recoveries	Net
Ste Foy			
1961-62	$1,983,379	$ 765,007	$1,218,3721962-63	2,016,206	813,544	1,202,6621963-64	2,050,306	714,757	1,335,549Q.M.V.H.	1961-62	5,529,697	2,481,209	3,048,4881962-63	5,659,665	2,586,931	3,072,7341963-64	5,884,881	2,961,169	2,923,712Ste. Anne's	1961-62	5,489,006	872,021	4,616,9851962-63	5,514,407	916,865	4,597,5421963-64	5,990,019	721,954	5,268,065NEW	INDUSTRIES	IN DESIGNATED	AREAS


Mr. Sienson: 1.	How many new industries have been established in designated areas and have taken advantage of the tax incentive program?
2.	How many people are these industries employing?
3.	In what province is each industry established?


Mr. Drury:: 1. Sixty one new manufacturing and processing businesses have declared their intention to establish in such a manner as to benefit from the designated areas tax incentive program. Of these, the government is aware of eight which are now in commercial production. There may be other new businesses which plan to take advantage of the tax incentive program. The government will not necessarily be aware of these until such times as the new businesses apply for certification by the Minister of Industry, as required under the Income Tax Act.
2.	The planned employment reported by the 61 new businesses is 5,225.
3.	Any announcement of a particular firm's intentions regarding location is made by the firm itself. The proposed locations of the 61 new businesses, as reported to the government, is broken down by provinces as follows: B.C.-Alta., 2; Ont., 32; Que., 20; N.B., 3; N.S., 4.


COMPENSATION TO CRIME VICTIMS
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government giving consideration to initiating a scheme of compensating crime victims through a system of cash payments to persons who have been injured as a result of criminal attack, as is now being done in countries such as Great Britain?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The government is following with interest such schemes in the United Kingdom and elsewhere but has no immediate plans for proposing any such legislation in Canada. Any such legislation in Canada might

raise a question of legislative jurisdiction as between parliament and the provincial legislatures.



* HARRY HOOPER


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What charges, If any, existed against Hooper during the time he was incarcerated in jail for 90 to 100 days, other than the fact that he was held in custody for refusing to answer certain questions alleged to be in accordance with the regulations and law?
2.	How many times during the 90 to 100 days of Hooper's incarceration was he brought before the court for a further remand in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Criminal Code of Canada?
3.	During the 90 to 100 days that the said Hooper was incarcerated before being deported, how many times was he questioned by those in authority or by the court as to whether he was willing to answer the questions which it was alleged he refused to so answer?
4.	How many people are at the present time incarcerated in Canada under similar conditions that Mr. Hooper was held?
5.	How many people were held during the period of 90 to 100 days the said Hooper was held?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. Harry Claude Hooper came under the jurisdiction of the Immigration Act on March 16, 1964. Prior to that time his detention was the responsibility of local police. He was detained from March 16 to May 26, 1964, a total of 71 days. He was detained from March 16 to March 23 to enable him to obtain counsel if he so wished at an immigration inquiry. Because he refused to answer any questions, the inquiry was adjourned from March 23 to April 7 to obtain essential documentary evidence that he was deportable and from April 7 to May 26 he was detained pending completion of travel arrangements and deportation. On May 22 he was charged under section 50(e) of the Immigration Act for having refused to answer questions. Section 50(e) of the act reads as follows:
Every person who refuses to be sworn or to affirm or declare, as the case may be, or to answer a question put to him or does not truthfully answer all questions put to him at an examination or inquiry under this act is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction, for the first offence to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and not less than one month or to both fine and imprisonment, and, for the second offence to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and not less than one hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months and not less than three months or to both fine and imprisonment, and, for the third or a subsequent offence to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months and not less than six months.
Questions
This charge was withdrawn on May 26 and Hooper was deported May 26.
2.	Subsequent to March 16, 1964, Hooper appeared before an immigration inquiry on March 23 and April 7. He was charged in court on May 22. The Criminal Code does not require that immigration detainees be brought before the courts and there is no authority in the Immigration Act for such action. However, all persons held under the Immigration Act may question the legality of the detaining or deportation orders by appealing to the courts.
3.	During the 71 days Hooper was held under the Immigration Act an immigration inquiry was held to determine his liability to deportation. The inquiry was opened on March 23, adjourned, and concluded on April 7 with a deportation order. In the course of the inquiry Hooper was asked 17 times to answer questions and he refused to do so.
4.	As of May 29, the first previous weekly reporting date, 33 persons were held in custody under the provisions of the Immigration Act.
5.	The department's filing and statistical systems do not permit the immediate compilation of the information requested in part 5 of this question. To obtain the information will require a physical review of numerous immigration files. This review is under way and as soon as the information is available it will be forwarded to the hon. member.



CITIZENSHIP OF C.B.C. WASHINGTON COMMENTATOR

Mr. Gundlock: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation any information as to the citizenship of Mr. Minifie, C.B.C. commentator in Washington, D.C.?
2.	Has Mr. Minifie renounced his Canadian citizenship and, if so, when?


Mr. Lamoniagne:: I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that they have received the following information from Mr. James M. Minifie, O.B.E. He was born in England, was brought to a Saskatchewan homestead at an early age. While in his teens he fought with the Canadian army in the first war; returned to University of Saskatchewan in March 1919 when demobilized. Won a Rhodes scholarship in 1923 and graduated from Oxford in 1926. Later became correspondent for New York Herald Tribune and C.B.C. contributor while in Europe travelling under a British passport, became naturalized U.S. citizen when newspaper transferred him to Washington in 1946, and continued C.B.C.

Questions
work first as freelance and later as correspondent under contract, which he is today.



IMMIGRATION FORM 1000

Mr. Smith: 1.	What is immigration form 1000 and what is its use?
2.	Are any Canadian citizens by birth or naturalization required to complete this form on their return to Canada from visits outside Canada and, if so, what category of Canadian citizens are so required?


Hubert Badanai: 1. The form IMM. 1000 is a card prescribed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration under the provisions of the Canadian Immigration Act and regulations. The card must be completed by all persons granted the status of landed immigrants in Canada and constitutes the department's official record of such admissions.
2. No.



* SUPERVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

Mr. Irvine: Under what act or regulation or order in council are the centre block, east block, west block and grounds, managed, supervised and maintained?


Mr. McWilliam:: The management, charge and direction of the property is vested in the Minister of Public Works pursuant to section
9	of the Public Works Act, chapter 228, R.S.C. 1952. The Government Property Traffic Act, chapter 324, R.S.C. 1952, as amended by chapter 34, S.C. 1960-61 and regulations provide for the control of traffic on the said property.
The National Capital Act, chapter 37, S.C. 1958, provides for the maintenance and improvement of the grounds pursuant to section
10	(2) (d). P.C. 865 dated May 21, 1934 is the authority for the national capital commission to maintain the grounds at parliament hill.



DORVAL AIRPORT, MONTREAL  ACCESS OF TAXIS

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Does the government intend to allow taxi cabs of the Montreal area to have access to the Dorval airport, and to withdraw this concession from the Murray Hill Company?
2.	What airports in Canada restrict the transportation of passengers to a single agency or company as is done at the Dorval airport?

Answer: 1. All taxi cabs of the Montreal area have access to Montreal International Airport (Dorval) to deliver passengers to the airport and to pick up passengers by prearrangement.
[Mr. Lamontagne.i
Murray Hill Limousine Service Limited has entered into an agreement with the department undertaking to maintain a 24 hour service for air line passengers and for this purpose maintains a limousine and taxi station at the airport. It is not intended to cancel this agreement.
2. Arrangements similar to those at Montreal International Airport are in effect at all major airports in Canada and at all or practically all others where there is a local taxi operator willing to guarantee that service will be available whenever required by air line passengers.



PESTICIDES IN MILK

Mr. Priitie: 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare make tests with regard to the amount of pesticides which are present in milk?
2.	Has the department calculated the danger mark of pesticides in milk?
3.	Is the present level of chlorinated hydrocarbon in milk in any area reaching the danger mark to human beings?
4.	If the danger mark for pesticides is exceeded in any area, what steps does the department take in this regard and, is the local or provincial government in the area notified?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. Yes.
2.	The Department of National Health and Welfare has on file extensive toxicity data on all pesticides which are likely to find their way into milk. From such data it is possible to determine the level of a pesticide which lias had no effect on experimental animals when administered over their entire lifetime. From this figure the acceptable daily intake for man can be calculated. It is not possible to give precise values for a danger level in milk unless one knows the probable period of exposure to the pesticide and other factors such as the presence of related pesticides in the milk and other foods.
3.	Pharmacologists in the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare do not believe that the levels of pesticides which have been found in milk represent any immediate hazard to health. However such residues are undesirable and could represent a potential health hazard if milk containing these residues were consumed over long periods of time. The food and drug directorate is continuing to examine samples of milk for pesticide residues.
4.	The Department of National Health and Welfare would take immediate action to remove from the market any samples of milk which were considered to represent a hazard

to health. The appropriate local and provincial authorities are kept informed on such matters.



DEVELOPMENT OF MARMOT BASIN, ALBERTA

Mr. Horner (Jasper-: Edson):
1.	For what reason was Marmot Basin Ski-Lifts Limited's proposal for the development of the Marmot basin chosen over that of the rival company Marmot Territory Development Company?
2.	Who are the directors of each of these firms?
3.	What is the estimated revenue accruing to the federal government from each of these tenders?


Mr. Laing:: 1. An assessment of the tenders revealed that Marmot Basin Ski-Lifts Ltd., had submitted a more satisfactory proposal with respect to four of the five items under which the tenders were assessed as specified in the call for tenders: financial capability, facilities to be provided in the form of a ski chalet, service to the public and rates to be charged for the use of the lift. The fifth item -schedule of construction and expected date of completion-was identical for both tenders as they indicated that the ski-lift would be operational for the 1964-65 skiing season.
2.	The directors of Marmot Territory Development Ltd., are: Dr. Brian Dunsworth, Mr. Toby Rayner, Dr. Robert Van Alstine, Mr. R. Evan Potter, Mr. Howard Bouey, and Mr. John Schlosser. The directors of Marmot Basin Ski-Lifts Ltd., are: Mr. C. R. Kiefer, Mr. J. A. Clarke, Dr. R. D. Wilson, and Mr. D. H. Husel.
3.	In each case 5 per cent of gross receipts from the lift operation. While no minimum revenue was guaranteed, each tenderer submitted the following estimates of revenue to the crown:
1965	$1,050	$1,0241966	1,200	1,1261967	1,500	1,2591968	1,800	1,3631969	1,950	1,500



LIVING EXPENSES PAID JUDGES ON CONCILIATION BOARDS

Mr. Knowles: 1.	What is the amount allowed per day for living expenses to federally appointed judges serving on conciliation or arbitration boards and is this amount over and above salary and travelling expenses?
2.	By what authority are such living expense allowances paid?
3.	What is the answer of the government to the criticism of the auditor general that the paying of such allowances is invalid?


Maurice Lamontagne: In so far as the Department of Justice is concerned:
Questions
1.	The amounts allowed are not determined at the instance of this department. Section 39 of the Judges Act provides that the amount allowed by the governor in council or a lieutenant governor in council is in addition to judicial salary; no additional travelling allowances are paid under section 21 of the Judges Act.
2 and 3. Section 39 of the Judges Act.
In so far as the Department of Labour is concerned: 1. The usual living allowance is $60 per day to a judge while engaged as a member and chairman of a board of conciliation and investigation. This amount is over and above transportation expenses. A judge receives no salary for such work.
2.	By authority of the governor in council in each case, pursuant to section 38(1) and section 39(3) of the Judges Act and section 64(1) of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
3.	The government is of the view that the payment of this living allowance is in compliance with the provisions of the Judges Act.



* HANDING OVER OF WORLD FAIR SITE

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,270
Mr. Marcoux:: 1.	On what date will the city of Montreal hand over to the world fair administration the site chosen as the location for the fair and is this the date specified in the act?
2.	Will the entire site be turned over on this occasion?
3.	Will there be a reception to celebrate the event and, if so, how many guests will be invited to attend and what will be the estimated total cost of the reception?


Mr. Pepin:: 1. The city of Montreal will officially hand over the exhibition site to the C.C.W.E. on June 30, 1964, in conformity with clause 17 of the tripartite agreement of January 18, 1963 between the government of Canada, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal.
2.	Legally yes, and physically in accordance with the schedule requirements of the C.C.W.E.
3.	It is understood that the city of Montreal is arranging a ceremony on that occasion to which, among others, will be invited representatives from the C.C.W.E. and delegates of member countries of the Bureau International des Expositions who will be in Montreal at that time.
Questions of guests and costs are the responsibility of the city of Montreal as host for that ceremony.
Questions



MOVING OF R.C.M.P. PERSONNEL, PICTOU, N.S.

Mr. MacEwan: What moving and trucking firms are listed for the electoral district of Pictou, Nova Scotia, for the moving of personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Guy Favreau: Moving and trucking services in that region are obtained from: English's Transfer, 70 Elm street, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. Cooke's Transfer, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.



* TENDERS FOR COAL, NATIONAL DEFENCE, LONDON, ONT.

Mr. Irvine: Have tenders been called for the supply of coal to the London armoury, No. 204 Base Workshop, Wolseley Barracks and 27 C.O.D. in London, Ontario and, if so (a) what tenders have been received (b) for what amounts (c) who was the successful tenderer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as this is quite a long answer I have the agreement of the hon. member concerned to treat it as a nonoral question. Therefore, with the consent of the house I ask that the answer to this question be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: (a) and (b) tenders received and amounts for the supply of coal from June 1, 1964, to May 31, 1965:
1. London armoury, Dundas st., London, Ontario. 155 tons-coal-bituminous high volatile prepared stoker.
	Price	Cost per million adjusted
Tenderers	per ton	BTUImperialle Fuels Co. Ltd. London, Ontario.	$10.91	$0.4142Dalton Fuels Limited, London, Ontario.	$15.26	$0.5371
2. No. 204 base workshop, Highbury ave., London, Ontario. 1,100 tons-coal-bituminous high volatile nut slack.

Tenderers	Price per ton	Cost per million adjusted BTU
Imperialle Fuels Co.		
Ltd. London, Ont.	$10.60	$0.3996(Alt)	$10.75	$0.4002Dalton Fuels Limited,	London, Ontario.	$12.35	$0.46433. Wolseley barracks,	London,	Ontario.
5,200 tons-coal-bituminous high volatile nut slack.
	Price	Cost per million adjusted
Tenderers	per ton	BTUImperialle Fuels Co. Ltd. London, Ontario:	$10.60	$0.3996(Alt)	$10.75	$0.3996Dalton Fuels Limited, London, Ontario.	$12.35	$0.46434. 27 Central ordnance depot,	Highburyave., London, Ontario.	4,500 tons-coal-	bituminous high volatile	nut slack.	Price	Cost per million adjustedTenderers	per ton	BTURochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co. (Canada) Ltd. Toronto, Ontario.	$ 9.48	$0,361Dominion Coal Company Limited, Rex-dale, Ontario.	$10.03	$0.3799The Valley Camp Coal Company of Canada Ltd. Toronto, Ontario.	$10.46	$0.3968Empire Hanna Coal Corp. Ltd. Toronto, Ontario.	$10.53	$0.4019Dalton Fuels Limited, London, Ontario.	$10.80	$0,406(c) Successful tenderers were as follows:	1.	London armoury, Imperialle Fuels Co. Ltd.2.	No. 204 base workshop, Imperialle Fuels Co. Ltd. 3. Wolseley barracks, Imperialle Fuels Co. Ltd. 4. 27 Central ordnance depot, Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co. (Canada) Limited.



NUMBER OF BANKRUPTCIES IN 1963

Mr. Irvine: 1. What was the total number of declarations of bankruptcy in Canada in each quarter of the year 1963?

Questions
2.	How many of these declarations were filed by firms connected with the building or building supply industry?
3.	How many were filed by firms in the hardware and/or appliance merchandising industry?
Number of	Construction	Hardware and	Furniture andbankruptcies	industry	building materials	appliances1st quarter	916	171	41	422nd quarter	894	167	40	453rd quarter	814	168	29	394th quarter	982	200	52	39Total	3,606	706	162	165
Answer: The number of declarations of bankruptcy in Canada under provisions of the Bankruptcy Act for the four quarters of 1963:



MARITIME UNION &quot;DO NOT SHIP&quot; LIST

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	When former seamen who have been on the "do not ship" list for more than three years contact the maritime trustees to seek reinstatement, are they referred to Mr. Leonard McLaughlin?
2.	In order to be reinstated are such seamen required to pay back dues, assessments, initiation fees, etc? If so, will such back payments total over $500 per person, in some cases?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. No. Any seaman appearing on the "do not ship" list who applies to the board of trustees or to any agency of the S.I.U. of Canada is referred to the maritime appeals board, a body set up to deal with such matters. The policy of the trustees is to seek the reinstatement of any former member of the S.I.U. who can establish that he was placed on the "do not ship" list and who did not leave the union for any other reason.
2. The maritime appeals board has jurisdiction to determine what back dues, assessments, and initiation fees, if any, will be assessed against the member as a condition [DOT]of his reinstatement. The policy of the board of trustees, which is again reflected in the maritime appeals board, is that no member who has been deprived of his rights as a result of being placed on the "do not ship" list will be required to pay any back dues or assessments.



GOLF CONCESSION, CAPE BRETON NATIONAL PARK

Arthur Laing: 1. Tenders were called to obtain the services of an individual to operate the golf course concession at the Cape Breton highlands national park. While the word "professional" was used in the call for tenders, it was also made clear that it was not an essential requirement for the successful tenderer to be capable of giving golfing lessons.
(a)	(i) John Clifford Shea; (ii) Christopher Mickey; (iii) J. Roland Donovan; (iv) Lome Jennex.
(b)	(i) Antigonish, N.S., student; (ii) Ingo-nish, N.S., truck driver; (iii) Ingonish, N.S., labourer; (iv) North Sydney, N.S., labourer.
(c)	(i) Tender incomplete; (ii) Tender incomplete; (iii) $350 per month; (iv) $625 per month.
2. J. Roland Donovan-$350 per month.



* OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP MINISTER

Mr. Knowles: Where is the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


Hubert Badanai: 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 2nd floor, Immigration building, Champlain harbour station, Wolfe's Cove, Quebec.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Were tenders called for the golf professional concession at the Cape Breton highlands national park for the 1964 season and, if so, (a) what were the names of those who tendered (b) what were the addresses and occupations of each of Those who tendered, and (c) what was the amount [DOT]of each tender?
2.	To whom was the concession awarded and for [DOT]what amount?
^OFFICE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE MINISTER

Question No. 1,291-Mr. Knowles:
Where is the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. Munro:: The Minister of National Health and Welfare performs the duties of her office in various places, but principally at the following addresses:	Copeland building,

Questions
Ottawa, Canada; Room 253S, House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada; 551 Clifton Avenue, Niagara Falls, Ontario.



AIRPORT LIMOUSINE CONCESSION, FORT SMITH, N.W.T.

Mr. Rheaume: 1.	What procedure is followed in awarding the airport limousine concession at Fort Smith, Northwest Territories?
2.	Which company presently holds this concession and (a) when was this concession awarded (b) what were the terms of the concession (c) when does this concession expire (d) which companies applied for the concession or were considered for it (e) on what basis was the concession awarded to the present operator?
3.	Was the present limousine operation recently investigated as to adequacy and cleanliness of vehicles and, if so (a) what were the findings of this investigation (b) what action, if any, does the government propose to take?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Late in 1960 it was decided to establish a taxi concession at Fort Smith airport. After investigation by the regional officers of the department it was found that there were two taxi operators in the area who would be interested in serving the airport and who were qualified to provide the service required by the department and Pacific Western Airlines, the scheduled airline serving the airport. The two taxi companies were invited to submit sealed offers to the department for the concession.
2. The concession is held by Alex Collier operating under the name of Yellow Cabs, (a) The concession was awarded effective April 1, 1961. (b) The concession was for a term of three years and thereafter from year to year, subject to cancellation at any time after three years by 30 days' notice one party to the other. The rental payable is $1,020 per annum with monthly instalments of $85 each. The agreement covers the exclusive operation of the limousine and taxi service at the airport, (c) The initial term of three years expired on March 31, 1964, but in accordance with the agreement it runs from year to year thereafter, but is subject to cancellation at any time on notice, (d) Sealed offers were received from Yellow Cabs (A. Collier) and Ole's Taxi Service (Ole Pedersen), (e) The concession was awarded to Yellow Cabs on the basis that they offered a higher annual payment ($1,020 per annum as against $200 per annum offered by Ole's Taxi Service).

3. Yes. (a) Yellow Cabs supplies sufficient number of vehicles to accommodate the traffic at the airport and these vehicles are generally of recent make. The condition of the vehicles and their cleanliness has been rated as fair. Pacific Western Airlines have not had any complaints from their passengers regarding the service but their airport agent occasionally complained about the cleanliness of the cabs, (b) The department has given legal notice under the terms of the agreement requesting immediate action to correct the above deficiencies and to bring the operation up to the standard required by the department. The department is now awaiting a further report from the regional official.



LOGGING OPERATIONS, FUNDY NATIONAL PARK

Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is it proposed to permit logging operations to be conducted in Fundy national park in the near future (i.e. within the next 12 months) and, if so, will all saw mill operators in south eastern New Brunswick be given an opportunity to bid for this privilege by competitive notice of tender?
2.	Have any cutting rights been authorized in Fundy national park from its inception to date?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2. From time to time permits have been issued to individuals living near the park for small quantities of dead or diseased timber for their own use, usually as firewood. No commercial cutting of timber has ever been authorized.



GROUNDING OF VESSEL, PUGWASH, N.S.

Mr. Coates: Was the inexperience of the pilot in any way responsible for the recent grounding of the vessel in Pugwash habour and, if so, to what extent?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. The master of the vessel absolved the pilot from all blame.



HALIFAX SHIPYARDS LTD.

Mr. MacEwan: In regard to question 1,241, what type of work was carried out by Halifax Shipyards Limited in the case of each item and also on what ships was the work completed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: The work carried out by Halifax Shipyards and name of the ship on which the work was completed in regard to each item included in reply to question 1,241 is as follows:

Ship
New Waterford (frigate 304) Algonquin (destroyer escort 224)
St. Charles (ocean going tug) Chaudiere (destroyer escort 235) Gatineau (destroyer escort 236)
YMT 1 (diving vessel)
Terra Nova (destroyer escort 259) B.A. Peerless (tanker, ocean going) Qu'Appelle (destroyer escort 264) Alcide (submarine)
Imperial Sarnia (ocean going tanker) YBE494 (calibration barge)
Yukon (destroyer escort 263) Chaudiere (destroyer escort 235) Chaudiere (destroyer escort 235)



FLYING OF ROYAL UNION FLAG ON CANADIAN EMBASSIES

Mr. Marcoux: Will our ambassadors, as representatives of the Queen of Canada, fly the royal union flag on Canadian embassies throughout the world?


Mr. Davis:: Canadian embassies now fly the red ensign. If resolution No. 44 now before the house is carried, steps will be taken to establish officially the flag that is clearly described as being the intended "flag of Canada". Once it is so established, Canadian embassies, high commissioners' offices, and all other Canadian offices throughout the world will fly that flag.



STUDY OF ATLANTIC SALMON

Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-: Carleton):
Has the government received a request from the New Brunswick fish and game protective association to have a study made by a competent authority relative to the Atlantic salmon before the Macta-quac development is undertaken?
Answer: No letter located.



NEW BRUNSWICK


Mr. Flemming (Vicioria-: Carleton):
1.	Has the Department of Fisheries made close studies of the effect of the proposed Mactaquac hydro project on the future propagation of salmon in the Saint John river and its tributaries?
2.	Have suggestions been made relative to spawning grounds and, if so, is any information available relative to the cost?
3.	What is the opinion of the Department of Fisheries concerning the effect of the proposed Mactaquac dam on the salmon fishing in the Saint John river and tributaries thereof?
Motions for Papers
Nature of Work	Amount
Emergency	$15,023
Emergency	16,852
Emergency	9,201
Emergency	9,141
Docking, refit	103,757
Docking, refit	12,476
Emergency	5,278
Degaussing repairs	4,817
Emergency	12,650
Emergency	10,305
Degaussing repairs	7,494
Docking, refit	24,846
Emergency	18,648
Docking, refit	80,000
Emergency	6,310
Answer: 1. Yes. Studies of the lower tributaries are being confirmed.
2.	Proposals have been developed and negotiations with N.B. Electric Power Commission are in progress.
3.	Department is hopeful that a plan now being considered will be capable of maintaining a salmon run to the Saint John river.



* STATUS OF QUEBEC DELEGATE GENERAL IN PARIS

Mr. Choquelie: Has the government of the province of Quebec asked the federal government to seek, for its delegate general in Paris, status similar to that enjoyed by its agent general in London and, if so, what are the problems involved in this project?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the reply to the question is as follows:
Since the opening of the Quebec delegation in Paris we have had consultations with the delegate general and the French government for the purpose of securing the privileges required for the efficient operation of the delegation.
We have found out that the relevant French regulations do not permit the granting to the delegation of a status exactly equal to that given by the British government to the agents general of the provinces posted in London. This is an administrative problem which the French government is considering at present and we trust that a solution will be found before long.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 132 is accepted. I ask that notices of

Inquiries of the Ministry motions Nos. 133, 134, 135 and 136 be allowed to stand, in the absence of the hon. members who propose to make those motions. Would Your Honour now call notice of motion No. 123.



SECURITY PROCEDURES AND INVESTIGATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 123-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Orlikow):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all government statements and directives to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there has only been one directive to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations, which adhered to the policies and procedures explained by myself and the then minister of justice on October 25. To table the directive in detail would, however, make public certain details prejudicial to national security. I therefore must, with great regret, decline to accept the motion as not being in the public interest, and in view of that fact I would hope the hon. member might be prepared to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who is unavoidably absent today, informed me yesterday that he had been told, and it was quite proper for him to be told, that the answer would be of the nature that has just been indicated by the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg North therefore asked me on his behalf to request that this motion be transferred to notices of motions, papers, for debate on a Thursday afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.



DETENTION OP UNITED KINGDOM VISITORS AT WINNIPEG AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 132-Mr. Baldwin:
That ah order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters and communications regarding Mrs. Elizabeth McGarvie and Miss Joyce McGarvie who, as visitors from the United Kingdom were detained by officials of the department of immigration at the Winnipeg international airport on April 3rd, 1964.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
[Mr. Stewart.)
direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence and ask him whether the order given some time ago regarding the removal from the air force base at North Bay of some 200 married servicemen and their families, and I think over 100 single men, has been altered or revoked in any way in the last few days.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker; there has been no decision taken in the past few days that was not decided some time ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Was there a communication received by the Prime Minister on Friday last asking him or his executive assistant whether there had been a change in connection with the order, and was the answer that the department or the minister was not able to provide the information but that it could be secured from Mr. Keith Davey?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker. I was asked on Friday last whether there had been any changes in so far as the squadron of Voodoos in North Bay was concerned. It was decided that the Voodoos would be withdrawn from North Bay toward the end of the summer. I was asked whether there would be any replacement, and to that I answered no. I was also asked to give information as to what number of personnel were involved in the withdrawal of the Voodoos, and I ascertained that it was about 250. As a supplementary question I was asked what had been the increase in personnel in that area since the manning of the Bomarc, or the arming of the Bomarc, was undertaken, and the manning of the SAGE installation there, and I answered that it was over 300.



MEETING OF JOINT U.S.-CANADIAN MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. A dispatch from Washington states that there are secret discussions to be held tomorrow in Washington between ministers of the Canadian and United States governments to discuss the use of nuclear weapons during an emergency. I want to ask the Prime Minister if such a meeting is being held; if so, who will represent Canada at this meeting, and what is the nature of the discussions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is to be a meeting tomorrow. It is a regular meeting of the

ministerial defence committee of Canada and the United States such as has been held in the past. The Canadian government will be represented by the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Defence Production, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Prime Minister whether two of the items on the agenda are the revision of the provisions whereby the United States may obtain permission to fly nuclear aircraft over Canada, and discussions to work out communication procedures for the firing of United States nuclear warheads on Canadian territory?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to give the subjects on the agenda of a meeting of this kind without the agreement of both governments. But I can say- in fact I must say, in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman has mentioned them- that those two subjects are not on the agenda.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's previous statements with respect to nuclear weapons, will the question of the gradual withdrawal of Canada from the nuclear field also be discussed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, all questions of mutual interest in the defence field will, I am sure, come up for discussion. I do not think that particular matter is mentioned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he could give the house the assurance that there will be no extension of Canada's nuclear role as a result of these discussions, without submitting the matter to parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, one which I cannot place on the order paper, sir. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister today about a meeting on defence to be held in Washington, which will be attended by the Minister of National Defence, Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Defence Production, is the Prime Minister in a position to inform this house whether those ministers have been advised in their discussions to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise to negotiate Canada out of a nuclear role?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Undoubtedly they will be informed of recent developments in Canada's defence policy.


Harold Edward Winch: My question was, is there any discussion to be held concerning the fulfilment of the Prime Minister's promise, now over two years old, to negotiate Canada out of a nuclear role?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of National Defence made quite clear the development of our defence policy and the direction in which it is leading. If that is not already clear to the United States government, it will be made so tomorrow.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence perhaps I can address it to his parliamentary secretary. What steps are being taken to assist a Canadian citizen by the name of Christian Reuter, who is reported to have been arrested and held by the Hungarian authorities? This matter takes on particular significance since only in the last few days it has been announced that diplomatic relations have been established between the two countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have some information on that matter, and perhaps my hon. friend would permit me to answer for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Christian Reuter's plight, I am informed, was reported last week by the Canadian embassy in Vienna. There is no Canadian representative in Budapest; therefore the British embassy there kindly consented to act on our behalf. Accordingly the British consul applied to the Hungarian authorities seeking the right of consular access to Mr. Reuter in order that the circumstances of his arrest might be established, his treatment investigated and his rights as a Canadian citizen upheld. Up to this moment the British consul has not yet been granted consular access, and it is therefore not possible to provide the house with the official facts concerning Mr. Reuter's arrest, detention and the nature of the charge. I can assure the house and the hon. member that every effort is being made on his behalf.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE


POLICY DECISIONS RESPECTING REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, before directing my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, I wish to take this opportunity, as an English speaking member representing a riding which is 70 per cent French Canadian, to congratulate and offer my best wishes to my fellow citizens, not only those inhabiting the beautiful province of Quebec, but living in every part of Canada, who are celebrating today their national feast day, the feast of St. John the Baptist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, while the right hon. Prime Minister has stated that the federal government will very carefully study the Hall commission report on health services before meeting with the provinces, is it the intention of the government to make public any policy decisions relating to this royal commission on health services before meeting with the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unwise to make public any policy decisions on behalf of the federal government until we have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the provinces.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising from the agenda for the water level seminar to be held in Montreal on Monday next at which the Minister of Transport and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will be addressing the conference. Will these hon. gentlemen be making some announcement in connection with water level policy on behalf of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker. The matter will be discussed in cabinet tomorrow.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apart from this conference may we expect soon some announcement on water level pohcy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will soon be able to have another announcement.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question of which I sent him notice.
Could the minister inform the house of the tariff concessions which were offered to the French firms, Peugeot and Renault, if they
choose to open plants in Quebec?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would not expect me to announce government policy on this or any other subject on the orders of the day. Before the government could reach a decision on this matter it would have to have all the facts respecting the plans and proposals of the two companies in question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry?
Could he tell us whether he has met or been in touch with representatives of the French firms Peugeot and Renault concerning tariff concessions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite catch the question. Is it asked whether I received a communication from the company? Well, the answer is no.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Has the minister been in touch with those firms?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer is no.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question

to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister had an opportunity yet to consider the request made by telegram yesterday by the mine and smelter workers of the Bancroft area that the area be designated a labour surplus area thereby qualifying, as Sudbury did, for transportation assistance to workers forced to leave that area to seek employment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under consideration.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Labour tell the house whether, since the winter works period came to an end on April 30, the depressed areas, commonly known as designated areas, have also been abolished?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the house whether the Thetford Mines area, where 600 men will be laid off, is still considered as a designated area, since there is some doubt in this connection as a result of the visit of the Quebec minister of natural resources, Mr. Rene Levesque, in that area .last week?


Mr. Speaker:: I really do not quite get the import of the question. Perhaps the hon. member would put it on the order paper. [Later:]


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rephrase a question I put to the Minister of Labour a few minutes ago. Is the minister willing to express to the house the fact that the Thetford Mines region is still a designated area for the coming year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There has been no change in the areas that were designated last fall. The areas designated then are still designated. It is expected that the system will be reviewed this fall, and perhaps changes may be made at that time.


Raymond Langlois: In view of the fact that this area is faced with the closing of mines, and that some companies are interested in establishing in it this summer and are waiting
Inquiries of the Ministry for this answer, could the minister possibly let it be known as soon as possible so that they can establish industries there this summer, thus helping to combat unemployment in that region?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not just understand the import of my hon. friend's question. If this particular area is presently designated, or has been designated, then there will be no change, and whatever benefits are available now will be available in the course of the summer.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport but possibly his parliamentary secretary can take it as notice. In view of the fact that Dr. How has resigned as director of the meteorological service and that an appeal has been lodged against the appointment of Mr. R. Noble as his successor; and in view of the deterioration of our image in this field at international meetings as a result of appointing a director to this position with no scientific reputation, will the minister give consideration to requesting the civil service commission to initiate a new competition for this position at the earliest date possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does strike me that this question, while very important, could nevertheless go on the order paper.


Robert Carman Coates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am quite agreeable to doing that if there is any possibility of getting any kind of answer in a reasonable time, but I have had a question on the order paper since May 1 and I have not had a reply yet.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the difficulty with the question is that it is not in proper order. It contains several allegations, and does not ask merely for information.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.

Inquiries of the Ministry If he cannot answer it today he might obtain an answer for the edification of members of the house concurrently with or before the announcement in the house tomorrow of the decision of the C.B.C. on the showing of the film "Mr. Pearson". Before arriving at their decision not to show the film, "Mr. Pearson", did the corporation refer the matter to the board of directors for a decision?


Maurice Lamontagne: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. The first decision was taken on the basis of program standards which have been applied by the corporation.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State inform the house whether the same body, the program standards division, will be making the decision which will be announced tomorrow?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, as I said last Monday when I gave my answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the management of the corporation has submitted this question to the board of directors.



OMISSION FROM NEWS BULLETIN OF REFERENCE TO HOUSE DEBATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: I have a question for the Secretary of State concerning the C.B.C. Will the minister inform the house whether there was any action taken by the minister or any member of the government to suppress from the C.B.C.-T.V. national news bulletin last night any reference to yesterday's debate concerning the C.B.C. film "Mr. Pearson"?


Maurice Lamontagne: I certainly did not communicate in any way with the C.B.C. on this matter.


Joseph Slogan: I should like to ask the minister if, as a matter of information to the members of the house, he would inquire from the C.B.C. and inform the house tomorrow whether any official from the C.B.C. edited out any reference to yesterday's debate. Also will he inform the house as to what percentage of domestic national news compared with foreign news appeared on the C.B.C. national news last night?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will, Mr. Speaker.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Is he yet in a position to make a statement as to whether the Argus aircraft repair and overhaul work done at Fairey Aviation will be continued beyond the expiry date which otherwise will come fairly soon?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this important problem is under active consideration at the present time but no decision has been reached yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will there be a decision and an announcement before the end of this month, in view of the current expiry date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a current expiry date, but I should like to reassure the hon. member that we are working as hard and as rapidly as possible to reach a decision.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS RESOURCE MINISTERS COUNCIL-LACK OF INFORMATION TO PRESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister comment on the recent meeting of the resource ministers council in Charlottetown, particularly in the light of the comments by Mr. Hennessy over the C.B.C. today which indicated that the conference was somewhat less than cordial?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While this is no doubt very interesting, we only have a half hour today and I wonder if the hon. member would not put his question on the order paper. I am sure he would get a detailed reply.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: With due deference, Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather important that the spirit of co-operation that existed in the past in this council continue. Perhaps the minister could answer this question. Can he comment on the charge made by Mr. Hennessy that there was a lack of information provided to the press from the conference?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether the instructions given the Chair by the house itself, namely that questions should not inquire whether statements made in newspapers are correct, would include radio. I assume that would be the legal interpretation; therefore the question is out of order.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a situation is developing on the west coast that is potentially far worse than that of the seaway problem. Picket lines are being established. This results from the fact that the trustees, in collusion with others, have allowed engineers from Montreal to go to the west coast, despite the fact there are men available on the west coast. This is in conflict with the engineers and the C.M.S. guild.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am aware of the situation which exists on the west coast. Whether it involves all the ramifications described by my hon. friend is something I am not prepared to admit.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister take into consideration the implications I have outlined in my question and take a serious look at the problem? Would he also consider the fact that Mr. Cunningham, a former west coast S.I.U. boss, is now the management consultant for the steamship line involved. This again seems to be with the blessing of the trustees, who are apparently working in collusion with others to the detriment of shipping in Canada.



WATERTON LAKES PARK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: 1 have a question for the minister of northern affairs.
I should like to ask him if he is now in a position to answer a question I asked on June 10, that is what aid will be given to those suffering from the recent flood disaster in Waterton lakes national park?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: We have not yet assessed the full damage that was done. We have had some representations made by some of the lessees there, but no action has been taken to date.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he is aware that even as late as last night the C.B.C. news carried pictures showing the flood in this area, which is actually not a fact? This is adverse publicity and is almost as bad as the disaster itself. I wonder if the minister could, publicly or in some way, inform the nation that this is not the case?


Arthur Laing: Yes, I understand that the portrayal last night by the C.B.C. was about a week late. This is most unfortunate. I am informed that over 90 per cent of the facilities for the public are available for public use. A statement has been made by our regional director in Calgary that this is the situation. We have had the utmost co-operation from the newspapers in the district and from radio stations in making the facts known. There have been a few cancellations, but we realize that probably the cancellations that have taken place were from the other side of the line where Glacier park, it would appear, suffered much higher damage than did Water-ton. We are back in business at Waterton again.


Erik Nielsen: While the minister was absent I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning floods in the Yukon. I wonder if the minister would refer to this question and give a statement to the house tomorrow?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Is the
minister of northern affairs in a position to give us a statement on the flood disaster situation at Stand Off, Glen wood ville and Cardston, or does his jurisdiction extend to that situation? Has the minister who is in charge been co-operating with him in taking care of it?



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice which is based on what he said on Friday in answer to a question of mine about a matter

Inquiries of the Ministry that some members are beginning to think is becoming very urgent, namely that he would inquire how soon the committee on procedure and organization expects to report an acceptable recommendation on limiting debate in this house?


Guy Favreau: I have not had a report on that yet.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General on a matter I brought to his attention yesterday inside and outside the house. Has the minister any information to give the house with respect to his inquiries concerning an unconventional special delivery of mail in Trail, undertaken at the request of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company Limited on the evening prior to a vote of the employees on an arbitration award?


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of national significance. It involves a principle.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not the slightest doubt that every question asked in the house is of national significance.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to bring the matter to the attention of the house at ten o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Postmaster General which I believe must be answered now. Is the Postmaster General in a position to tell the house whether it is correct that in the past few days, and without his authority, a postmaster has delivered
3,000	letters without special delivery stamps and not within the general postal delivery time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this is the same question but in another form. Would the hon. member put this on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, this is something which is of the utmost importance, because as I understand the situation it involves a breakdown of the authority of parliament with regard to what must be done in the

delivery of letters. Is the Postmaster General in a position to answer this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Whether he is in a position or not, I suggested that the hon. member put this on the order paper, and I think that judgment should stand.



DENIAL OF INFORMATION RESPECTING TENDERS AND CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General and ask him why I have been denied today the information in respect to the calling of tenders and the renewal of contracts in the Post Office Department in the riding of Hastings-Frontenac?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the letter I wrote the hon. member yesterday covered the situation. In it I said:
I appreciate the reasons behind your request and much as I would like to assist in this matter, you will realize that it has not been the policy of my predecessors to follow the requested course of action.
That is, under this or former governments.
The fact that there is no precedent is not in itself justification for non-compliance with your request.
I have looked into the matter fully and I find that, in order to supply the required information, we would have to add considerably to the administrative and clerical routines of the department. This in turn means setting up involved procedures to operate as a general practice. In view of the increase in work, I am loath to start an arrangement with you which could not be extended to your confreres in the House of Commons.
I thought this would have satisfied my hon. friend when I added:
While I cannot accede to your request for general information, I can assure you that the department will be pleased to furnish specific information about any particular case you may wish to inquire about.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, as the Postmaster General is a new postmaster general and he may not be aware of this, I would say to him-


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -that this information is supplied to the defeated Liberal candidate in my riding. All it would involve now is another carbon copy which could be posted free, and then I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -would get the same information.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend really wants this information he can put a notice of motion for the production of documents on the order paper, but it would take time and expense to produce them. If he wants some rambling information it is going to take some weeks to prepare it.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I was of course suggesting it would be more economical if he put in another carbon copy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -and I could get the information that way.


Mr. Speaker:: The time for questions under our standing orders has elapsed.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Breton South did not hear me. The time for questions on Wednesdays is one half hour and the time has expired, so orders of the day were called. That is what we are doing at the moment.



COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PRICES PAID BY LIVESTOCK FEEDERS

Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry) moved:: That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to examine and inquire forthwith into all matters arising out of and relating to the difference between the prices received for feed grain by the producers in the prairie provinces of Canada and the price paid by livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia, and that the evidence adduced before this committee in the twenty sixth parliament be referred to the committee, and that the committee have leave to receive such evidence as part of the said examination.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 23, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $469,308,421.26, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $329,299,209.25;
(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;
Interim Supply
(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.
The Chairman:: Order. Perhaps the committee would expect the chairman at this time to express an opinion or render a judgment in connection with the very important point of order which was raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs shortly before we adjourned last evening. The minister at that time took exception to and requested a ruling from the Chair concerning certain expressions used by the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Yukon.
The minister said, as reported at page 4644 of yesterday's Hansard:
-the hon. gentleman cannot under the rules of this house be allowed to go unchallenged when he suggests that the Prime Minister has misinformed this house-
And later, as recorded at page 4645 of Hansard the minister said:
I ask you, sir, to ask the hon. gentleman who spoke just before the hon. member for Yukon to withdraw what he said about the statement made by the Prime Minister, and the hon. member for Yukon a moment ago has violated our rules when he referred to statements made by the Prime Minister as lies.
Referring first to the words used by the hon. member for Bow River, these words are reported at page 4644 of yesterday's Hansard. The hon. member said:
None of us saw him rise in his place, Mr. Chairman, to answer the charge that he had misinformed the house.
These are the words to which the minister took exception, and I must say in my opinion the suggestion that there is misinforming of the house is not unparliamentary. I believe this statement or this phrase would have to be coupled with the suggestion that the misinforming was deliberate and voluntary to make it a breach of the privileges of the house and to make the phrase unparliamentary. This is my ruling in connection with that point.
Now, I would like to refer to the other matter referred to in the point of order raised by the minister. This has reference to the statements made by the hon. member for

Interim Supply
Yukon, and these are reported at page 4645 of yesterday's Hansard where the hon. member for Yukon said:
I said, sir, concerning those words quoted, that they were lies and I maintain they were lies-
I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that those words constituted rather strong language and my impression, knowing the hon. gentleman, was that perhaps they were uttered in the heat of debate and went beyond his thoughts. I would ask the hon. member if he would, perhaps, rephrase the statement he has made in order to facilitate the position of the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: I want to be as co-operative as possible in all the circumstances. I think it would be rather difficult to rephrase, as Your Honour has suggested, the words I used last night. But before entering upon the merits of the point raised by Your Honour I wish to draw your attention to a point of order which the Chair may have overlooked and which may have been overlooked also by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
If Your Honour would refer to page 121 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, 1958, and page 120, citation 138(2) you will see there is a specific procedure set out which must be adopted in committee and by the Speaker of the house in order to set the wheels in motion, should there be any question of enforcing an order which might be made by Your Honour or by Mr. Speaker. This procedure is also set out in May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, commencing at page 468. The substance of these rules-I do not intend to go into detail now, but if the matter is pursued I should like to reserve the right to deal with it in more detail-the substance appears to be, according to May at page 473, that the matter must be raised at once, and if the house is in committee a specific procedure is laid down whereby the Chairman reports to the Speaker, and thus begins the chain of procedure which must then be followed. I raise this point now because I feel the point of order takes precedence over the suggestion made by Your Honour that the words I made last night should be altered in any way at all.
In brief, my statement at this time is that the matter must be dealt with at once and, therefore, that there is no jurisdiction resting with Your Honour or with Mr. Speaker to deal with it now at all.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not wish to argue with the hon. member but he must realize that when we had to adjourn at ten o'clock the
[The Chairman.)
matter was then under consideration, and we are now continuing the consideration of the matter which was under way at that time. It is true that an objection must be made immediately if any member objects to words uttered by hon. members in committee, in the same way as objection must be taken in the house. But this, to my mind, is exactly what the minister did. These words were uttered as reported at page 4645 by the hon. member for Yukon. He said he had uttered those words, and he repeated them. He said: "I maintain they were lies". This is the moment when the Secretary of State for External Affairs raised the point, and I do not agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Yukon that it was too late then, or that it is too late now, to pursue the matter.
On this particular question of procedure I must rule against the hon. member and I again ask him to give serious thought to withdrawing the words he used.


Erik Nielsen: Well, I only wish at this time, before the procedure develops further, to refer Your Honour to page 4630 of Hansard where, in the right hand column, in addition to the words quoted subsequently by Your Honour from Hansard, I said, as reported: "I am not going to say that the Prime Minister lied."


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not wish to put the hon. member in a difficult position, but he has just confirmed what I said. When he made that statement as reported at page 4630 he could not be called to order because he did not make a statement that these were lies. But he did make a statement, as reported at page 4645, and these were his words- unless they were incorrectly reported in Hansard and, if they were, now is the time to make the correction; he used the words: "I maintain they were lies". Perhaps the hon. member would like to tell us that he was wrong when he said what was reported at page 4645, and that what he really believes is what he said as recorded on page 4630 of Hansard.


Erik Nielsen: I can only repeat that as reported at page 4630 of Hansard, I said: "I am not going to say that the Prime Minister lied". But when we read page 3429 of Hansard we find the following answer given by the Prime Minister to a question: "We do not censor films on this side of the house". I say, sir, that that is a lie, because that is precisely what happened. I would point out, too, that at page 3430 of Hansard we find

a reply by the Prime Minister which is reported as follows:
The circumstances were perfectly proper. The initiative was taken by the producer of the film, and no question of censorship arises.
I also say that that statement is a lie. I went on to say, as reported at the page Your Honour has mentioned, page 4645-to quote the words in their full context:
If the minister will stop his attempts at closure I will complete my point of order. I said, sir, concerning those words I quoted, that they were lies and I maintain that they were lies.
That, in my humble opinion, sir, is my view of the matter. There was a question of censorship involved. That is what the whole debate is about, and this question of censorship has been under debate now for two days, as well as during several question periods; it concerns the statement by the Prime Minister that there was no censorship on that side of the house. This whole debate revolves around the matter of government censorship and, in my humble view, the statement that there is no censorship involved in this question is as I described it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest we accept the hon. gentleman's explanation as satisfactory and sufficient.


An hon. Member:: No martyrs today.


Lucien Lamoureux: Of course, the matter rests with the committee, and if the Prime Minister, who is actually the person concerned, accepts the words which have just been spoken by the hon. member for Yukon I have no further quarrel and I will recognize the hon. member for Bow River.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I might-


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend from Bow River had the floor. Ordinarily, I do not raise these matters, but it seems to me-


Lucien Lamoureux: That is correct. The hon. member for Bow River had the floor last night and should be allowed to conclude his remarks.


Mr. Woolliams:: I shall be very brief. I began to answer an attack upon me with reference to remarks I made earlier in the evening; I felt duty bound to answer those remarks.
In brief, I was accused of making a vicious attack upon the Prime Minister. This was said by the hon. member for Verdun. I was accused of making an unwarranted attack upon him. I was accused of making a preinterim Supply
meditated attack upon him. If to point out
to members of this house and to the country facts in absolute contradiction to the statements of the Prime Minister-if that is what the hon. member means by "vicious", then I am guilty. If it is unwarranted for me to dare to bring forward definite, concise contradictions made by the Prime Minister of this country when we on this side of the house are seeking information-if that is what the hon. member for Verdun meant by "unwarranted", I am guilty. If, in the words of the hon. member for Verdun, I have prostituted my ability clearly to bring before the house the facts relating to the C.B.C. and to other matters, but particularly relating to the C.B.C. to keep it independent politically, to keep it free from bias and to keep it out of the field of politics-and I did this with all the ability I can command-if that is what he means by that statement, then I am guilty. I say I am guilty because it is my responsibility to the people I represent, as it is also the responsibility of us all to the people of the nation and to parliament, to bring these facts carefully before parliament in relation to any other member, particularly in relation to the Prime Minister of this country. If by a "premeditated attack" the hon. member meant that I had done some research, read through Hansard and picked out those absolute contradictions, if that is the charge he makes against me, then I am guilty.
However, if the charge he made against me, which I say he failed to prove, was that I took out of context statements in Hansard or statements made in the debate itself, then I am innocent. I have appeared, and I say this with modesty, in every court in Canada, including this court, which is the highest court in the land, and I have never been accused of taking anything out of context, either unintentionally, as in the argument I produced yesterday, or intentionally. In that regard I say I am innocent. No words that Mr. Kent or anyone else wishes to place in the hands of the hon. member will create such fear that I will shirk my responsibility first to my constituency, then to the nation and to every hon. member in this house. Good or bad press is immaterial when one is dealing with the facts in this house. The facts must be known.
The hon. member for Verdun, speaking for the cabinet as their agent-and he admitted that to me very frankly-stated that in this day and age people of the stature of the Prime Minister of Canada should never be

Interim Supply
subjected to that kind of attack. I say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member who does not appear to be in the committee this afternoon-


An hon. Member:: Yes he is.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry; I did not see him. I would say to him this, that I intend,
and I accept this as my responsibility, to bring these facts before the house. But if he thinks that this kind of attack was a vicious attack or was an unwarranted attack I should like to call a very good witness before the bar of the House of Commons. This witness of whom I speak gave on September 18, 1962, the evidence I will produce. If that distinguished member used the kind of language he used at that time with reference to another prime minister, I would have thought that the hon. member for Verdun should carefully analyse his remarks when he charges that I made an unwarranted attack on the Prime Minister.
It seems very strange, Mr. Chairman, that these men who now sit on the cabinet benches and who used to sit on this side in the past could make the kind of personal attacks that they did make in the past, and it would be all right. But this is the new era. This is the era of 60 days; this is the era of decision. And what decision. Today, because they sit on that side of the house, if people bring forward the facts in parliament for the people of Canada to read and appreciate, this is unwarranted and vicious.
Now let us see what this distinguished witness said on this former occasion. I observe some hon. members on the other side of the house are starting to wriggle because they do not know which witness I am going to call to the bar of this house. This witness can be corroborated in this kind of conduct by many who now sit in high places. This speech was made on September 18, 1962 by the present Prime Minister in Toronto when he was addressing the district Liberal members of parliament in the Royal York hotel. In these references he was referring to the present Leader of the Opposition. So that we get the atmosphere of this speech, it was made after the 1962 election, after the charge by the Liberals, who were then in opposition, with reference to the financial situation-and I see the minister of health trying to say something. Anyway, I could bring her in as a good witness if she wants.
In this speech these are some of the things the present Prime Minister said against the

then prime minister. At that time no one now on that side said it was unwarranted, no one said it was vicious. Oh no-it was good for the country, because hon. members opposite were hungry for power. First of all the right hon. gentleman was very mild in tone. He said it was an "incredible effrontery," referring to the then prime minister. Then in dealing with the financial problem which arose during the election and the explanation given by the then prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, he said it was "gross and unpardonable deceit", still referring to the then prime minister. Then he referred to another man who was recently expelled from this house because he dared stand up in his place and bring certain facts before the house. This is what he said of him on that occasion, that "he still kept up the deceit". That is referring to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
On the second page of his speech the Prime Minister said this about the then prime minister:
The prime minister, after the election was over, did not try any longer to conceal the facts.
In other words, the present Prime Minister charged the then prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, with concealing facts. If I were to use that kind of language this afternoon, or if I had used that kind of language yesterday, I would be called to order. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is not here this afternoon, would have risen from his seat. Today he is out of the atmosphere of politics; but yesterday he would have said that it was terrible for anyone to use that kind of language. And particularly so, said the hon. member for Verdun, against the Prime Minister of the country. 1 say with the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, to his person and to his position that in the House of Commons in debate we recognize the Prime Minister as the leader of the country and the leader of the house. But, as the former president of the United States, Harry Truman, said, if in debate you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


Mr. Churchill:: He stayed out last night.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will now move on to page 3 of this speech. He said that it was a "farcical explanation" and that there was "contempt of parliament". Then he went on to say that the former prime minister was-
-the man who cannot make a speech without boasting how he has restored the rights of parliament.

Then he referred to all of the Conservative cabinet and put them in the same category, every one of them. This is what he said about them. He referred to "the government's stupidity and deceit"-he used the word "deceit". We know, Mr. Chairman, what the word "deceit" means. It means deliberate deception, in this case of the people, the House of Commons and the members of the House of Commons.
I now come back to my original point. When I made my attack yesterday afternoon, which I felt I did with responsibility and justification, the great brains of the Liberal party handed down a speech, which was read here, which said in effect that I had prostituted my ability and that I had made an unwarranted and a vicious attack. Why was that said? It was because the government realized that this attack was justified, and if they could whitewash the news items in the press of this country to make it more mild and palatable the people might accept it and understand.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Everyone is against you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear the minister of health saying they are all against me. After seeing certain cartoons which went across the land I do not think she should talk like that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, on a matter of personal privilege. May I suggest to my hon. friend that if he is desirous of appearing in cartoons I would be pleased to present him to several members of the press gallery.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to get into an argument at the moment with the minister of health, but I was thinking about that last cartoon I saw where the present Prime Minister was walking up the staircase with two balls and chains, one representing the minister of health and the other the Minister of Finance. That may have been the reason why when I raised my first question of privilege on this matter, the Prime Minister blushed and looked as red as a beet. If hon. members opposite care to read what the present Prime Minister said in that same speech, they will see that he linked Mr. Diefenbaker with the London Daily Worker; he linked Mr. Diefenbaker with Khrushchev, with regard to the suggestion concerning a world trade conference. In other words, it was fine for the Prime Minister, then the leader of the opposition, to call a then Conservative prime minister deceitful; it was fine for him to link the prime minister with the Daily Worker; it was fine for him to link the then prime minister with Khrushchev-and it was also fine for 20220-297
Interim Supply
any man who sat in high places to refer to him as a nazi.
That was the kind of abuse that poured out across this nation for five years. Sometimes we Tories have to take off our coats, because this is an old, Liberal trick, namely that in order to defeat a Conservative government the first thing you do is destroy its leader. They did it to Arthur Meighen; they did it to Bracken; they did it to Drew, and they did it to E. B. Bennett from my own city- and they finally tried to do it to the present Leader of the Opposition. But they have not succeeded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: So they hired a boy to do a man's job last night, because these people over there on the front benches were not in the chamber at the time. I want to hear from the cabinet on this; I want an explanation of these matters; I want to hear what they have to say.


Mr. Mackasey:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We could put on-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Verdun is rising on a question of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is he rising because he isn't
a boy?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I would accept that description of myself in preference to the one the hon. member used last evening on a question of privilege. I had no intention of interrupting the hon. member, but on several occasions in his speech so far he has emphasized that someone else wrote my speech for me. I know it may be straining the credulity of the hon. member, but I would ask him to accept as a fact that I prepared my own speech, as I have always prepared my speeches, whether they have been ordinary or excellent, in my short political career. Whether the hon. member accepts that fact or not is entirely up to him. While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I may say that I completely accept-I say this in the presence of everybody-the hon. member's admission of guilt as he eloquently expressed it at the beginning of his remarks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member said he did write that speech, there is one thing we are sure of-that he did read that speech.


An hon. Member:: Shame.

Interim Supply


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody said "shame". Of course it is a shame; it takes up the time of the house and it is so uninteresting.


An hon. Member:: Not as uninteresting as your speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before I leave this matter, Mr. Chairman, I want to put a little more evidence on the record. I wish to read from Hansard of May 21, page 3428. This is in reference to a communication with Her Majesty the Queen with respect to the flag. This is what the Prime Minister said about this particular matter. There are dozens of these cases that I could mention, but I want to put one more on the record:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps that will explain the inaccuracy of the right hon. gentleman's report.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the report inaccurate in stating that the Prime Minister said that he had telegraphed the Queen and had advised her that the red ensign would not be our flag?
This is the point:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it is inaccurate.
Meaning that he had not telegraphed the Queen. A few days passed, not very many; and just so we have the record straight I would point out that this was on Thursday. Then there was Friday, Saturday, Sunday; and on Monday-


Mr. MacEwan:: Jack returned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Jack returned. I should now like to read from Hansard of May 25, 1964, page 3533:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I should tell the house that I have, in an informal way, informed the Queen, through her private secretary, of the intentions of the government in this matter, without of course asking for the Queen's advice, which would he unconstitutional. As a matter of courtesy it was surely desirable to let the Queen know what the intentions of the government were in this matter, and that has been done.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you tell the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) ?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the Prime Minister in any way to go into detail, because the Queen would not get any more information than the house has received, I suppose-
Then there is this passage:
-but would the Prime Minister say when it was that he communicated with the secretary of Her Majesty the Queen?
I ask hon. members to keep in mind that the Prime Minister said he had not communicated with Her Majesty the Queen, and to keep in mind that the Prime Minister does not contact the Queen directly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can't shout me down now; you can make as much noise as you want. I know you don't like to hear these facts because you feel very uncomfortable; and I know the Prime Minister will be blushing today as he did when he refused to answer the question of privilege.


Mr. Sharp:: We would like to have facts, not fiction.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I never knew the debates in Hansard were fiction, except when the hon. member who has interrupted me is talking.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is your interpretation that is fiction.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will continue reading from Hansard:


John George Diefenbaker: -but would the Prime Minister say when it was that he communicated with the secretary of Her Majesty the Queen?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not the exact date in my mind, Mr. Speaker.
Not the exact date. Then he said:
The first communication was a good many days ago, and there has been one since that time.
In the house on Thursday the Prime Minister said there was no communication, and on Monday he said there was communication.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friends say no. We are anxious to hear the explanations of these things.
I now want to turn to one other subject before I sit down, Mr. Chairman. I think it is very important because we do not want to lose the perspective of the debate. First of all, these irregularities and contradictions were pointed out because we have read in the newspapers recently and have heard a lot of talk about the respect for parliament; but if members of the opposition cannot get the information for which they ask, if they cannot get the information without wishy-washy answers or contradictory answers, respect for parliament will go down and down, and not only will we lose our democratic system but we will eventually lose parliament itself.
Let us consider the C.B.C. for a few moments. I need not remind hon. members that the C.B.C. was incorporated as an independent corporation. It is supposed to be independent from political influence; it is supposed to be away from bias. But I say this to the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that the way they have conducted this affair over the famous Pearson film raises a great many queries in our minds. It is not

the $35,000 the taxpayers have thrown in the wastepaper basket that we are complaining about; but as soon as they get into the realm of communications it is a sad state of affairs, because we know what has happened in other lands when any government has controlled thought by communication.
I say they have politically interfered with the C.B.C. If we could have certain members of the C.B.C. appear before a special committee, when it would not be said that heads would roll in the aisle and they could come here freely, to a free institution and speak for themselves, they would say how many calls they have received from the Prime Minister's office on this and other matters; they would say how much interference there has been from other cabinet members. The C.B.C. was incorporated as an independent body to be a news medium and means of communication across this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My good friends clap; they make noises, but their words do not bear out the purpose for which the C.B.C. was incorporated. They have interfered with the C.B.C.; they are guilty of censorship and interference. I still say that I hoped that on the day I raised the question of privilege, yesterday, there would have been a few more cabinet members in the chamber. At one time we were down to eight or nine members on that side. It was a serious charge. I made it with responsibility and I made it because I believed it was my duty to the people of my constituency, the people of the nation and to the members of parliament in this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I greatly welcome the opportunity to take part in this discussion and in doing so I do not propose to go back and read the election speeches or post-election speeches of leading members of the opposition. I propose to confine my remarks to what has been happening in the house as appears in Hansard. I have made the same kind of election speech which my hon. friend who has just sat down complains so bitterly about when they are uttered by members on this side of the house, and no doubt in the heat of debate outside the house at political meetings we do say things which we should perhaps regret later. At times we may even accuse members of this house of being more interested in their salary increase than they are in the settling of the flag question.
Interim Supply
The hon. member who just sat down once said, and I am sure he regrets this very much, that the Liberal party is a cesspool of civil servants with red friends.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. What I did say at the time Hazen Argue, who had said he was a socialist, joined the Liberal party was that birds of a feather flock together and birds of red feathers roost together.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, we have the hon. member's speech, and he also said that. But this is a kind of idle talk. What we want to do is decide in respect of the situation which is now before us on the basis of the facts because the facts, Mr. Chairman, often give a sufficient answer to the product of frenzied imaginations or calculated malevolence.
I am sorry that I was not able to be in the house last night to listen to what was apparently a very interesting evening of debate. In my present office there are certain duties and obligations which keep me out of the house. They entail certain sacrifices and my absence last night was one of those sacrifices. The extent and nature of the sacrifice I will leave to those who were here and were subjected to the debate.
I do not want to spend very much time dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River, but I want to thank him for his reiterated respect for the office of the prime minister, uttered with a kind of nauseating sanctimoniousness, very often as a prelude, to use his own words, to taking off his coat and destroying the leader. I also want to thank him for his devotion to the standards of parliamentary purity and the dignity and decency of debate. These are things we can all support, however inadequate we may be in our performance.
But I have to refer to what he said because he has demanded my resignation. This is a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman.


Erik Nielsen: Let us have it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He has demanded my resignation, not on the ground that I produced an economic report marked "confidential" with the page marked "confidential" torn off, not on the ground that I introduced into Hansard a forged letter designed to stir up trouble between Canada and the United States. The hon. gentleman, with his passion for the purity of parliament, was strangely silent when these things were done in the House

Interim Supply
of Commons. But now he thinks I should resign because I got a little mixed up about a meeting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, you got a little mixed up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -concerning the Banff games that was held at the winter games in Austria, and perhaps I called a "conference" a "meeting" or something of that kind, that took place in Austria. I may have misled the house in relation to the nature of that meeting at Salzburg and I really do apologize. I should have said Innsbruck. There is another example of misleading the house. I said Salzburg when it was Innsbruck, but I really feel I cannot resign on those grounds.
Far more serious is the use I made or did not make of a letter from 12 intellectuals-


John George Diefenbaker: Sneeringly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -dealing with the flag. The hon. gentleman opposite said I should resign because I misled the house by saying this letter was not signed, when it was signed. That is what he said.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would read what I said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will deal with that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I received two letters, one addressed "Dear Mr. Prime Minister" and one addressed "Dear Mr. .. ". The "Dear Mr. .. " letter apparently was a kind of form letter reproduction of the first letter which was sent to a great many people, including members of parliament. It was sent to them by one of the 12, if not all 12, before I received the letter which was addressed to me. It had no address on the top and no salutation. I did get one about the same time-a little later, I think, because it was sent special delivery, and it was addressed "Dear Mr. Prime Minister". It had no indication of origin. It had no signature of any kind, except 12 typewritten names-not one signature, just 12 typewritten names, and no indication where I should send an acknowledgement if I desired to send one, as I generally do to my communications. There were just 12 typewritten names. We have to be very careful in receiving letters of this kind without signature, Mr. Chairman, because they might well be forged, and we on this side try to be careful about that sort of thing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are still worried about that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But the hon. member for Bow River has misled the house by stating this letter to me was signed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Would the Prime Minister read from Hansard where I said it was signed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will find it and I will be glad to read it. Here it is: "A signed communication", he said, "with 12 typewritten names". If the hon. gentleman has misled the house in this regard I hope he will at least resign his seat in accordance with his own precepts of divine and natural justice.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with this question of the film which has got me so much undeserved publicity. If and when it is shown, I think I am now guaranteed the largest audience that any Canadian television performer has had, including the hon. member for Port Arthur. For that, of course, I should be, and indeed I am, grateful. No doubt a decision is now being made by the C.B.C. board of directors as to whether or not I am to get this publicity.
Before I deal with certain aspects of the film, I want to clear up one point, I hope once and for all, although I am not quite sure my ambitions in that regard will be realized. I have been accused, as the leader of the government, of permitting cameramen into a meeting of the cabinet or a meeting of a cabinet committee. I confess, Mr. Speaker, I was very angry and indignant at that charge, even by implication, because that would have been a violation of my oath as a privy councillor. If indeed that had happened, I should resign. But it did not happen and the insinuations and suggestions that it did happen are false, misleading and untrue. There was no filming of a cabinet meeting or any part of a cabinet meeting or any committee of the cabinet. A picture was given to the press-by whom I do not know, presumably it would appear to be Intervideo Productions-of what purported to be a cabinet meeting, and was so described in certain newspapers where that picture appeared.
This picture, Mr. Chairman, was not of the cabinet in session which would, as I have said, have been a violation of our oath as privy councillors. Moreover, this picture did not appear, in fact, in the film as shown to the press, as the hon. member for Port Arthur must have known because he was

there, but who did not attempt to clarify the matter when it came up. The picture was in fact, Mr. Chairman, a shot of certain cabinet ministers in the cabinet room before a meeting. What was in the film, as shown to the press, I have ascertained from those who were there, was a discussion in my office with three or four ministers, the sort of thing I have every day and which the producer asked leave to photograph under conditions which I will refer to later. It was not a cabinet committee meeting. A cabinet committee has a formal agenda and formal minutes. What was photographed and included in the film was simply a sort of informal discussion with ministers in my office, such as take place practically every day.
There is of course, Mr. Chairman, no impropriety of any kind in taking a picture of the full cabinet before a meeting of the cabinet, in informal discussion. There is no impropriety in that procedure at any time. I have no doubt that when my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was in office such a picture or pictures may have been taken and displayed in the press, pictures of cabinet ministers in discussion before a cabinet meeting occurred. I have no doubt in the world that that happened. Indeed there is no doubt on the point, so I hope there will not be any allegations of impropriety in using that picture.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this famous but unseen film, its origin and its present position. I am very glad to have the opportunity of putting these facts on the record. This is the first opportunity I have had because it is not possible to tell the story in answer to questions. There has been no other opportunity. There was no other opportunity until we got into interim supply, and interim supply has been going on for two or three days. Naturally, I wished to hear the allegations and charges made by the other side before I stated what, in fact, had happened. If I had done otherwise, it is quite obvious what would have been the reaction of hon. gentlemen opposite. They would have said that while they were ambitious to get ahead with the flag resolution and the important legislation before this house, I had introduced this question into supply by making the first statement about it; that would have been the charge.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not answering statements made in the house by frontbenchers of the opposition. I am dealing with statements made by other members of the official opposition, and with questions that
Interim Supply
were raised on orders of the day. It is difficult to answer questions on a matter of this kind on orders of the day. If you give a simple, direct answer to the specific question asked, in its limited interpretation, you are accused of not telling the whole story. If you try to tell the whole story, the antecedents, surroundings, and so on, you are accused of trying to mislead the house by a wealth of detail. I have the opportunity now, Mr. Chairman, and I propose to take full advantage of it.
The idea of this film was first suggested to a member of my office in September, 1963, by a telephone call from a producer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This telephone call was followed by a letter on September 9. I have a copy of that letter before me dated September 9. It is signed by Mr. Ross McLean, who is a producer for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and it is addressed to Mr. Richard O'Hagan, office of the Prime Minister, Ottawa, Ontario. This letter says this, he having made the request that we allow this to be done on behalf of the C.B.C.:
I know that you understand what such a request involves. I won't pretend that a film of this kind can be made without some intrusion into private areas of an individual's life. For a full understanding of the job he performs, we would need to follow him fairly closely over a period of several days. We would want to see him in a variety of official activities, and we would hope as well to see him informally at home and elsewhere.
He made a very strong plea that we allow this film to go on. I mention this because it is important, Mr. Chairman. It shows that the initiative in this matter, and this is important, did not come from anyone connected with my office or with the government; so there was no question of any image making overtures from the government which so upset the former minister of agriculture the other day. He thought we had been going in for image making, and this was the most horrible example he had yet discovered of this process. I welcome his conversion to the iniquities of image making because, in all the long history of political image making in Canada, there is nothing to compare with a trip from Ottawa to Hong Kong at public expense to be photographed signing a treaty with the Chinese communists which had, in fact, been signed two days before. I agree that there was a great deal for him in his position; but image making techniques can go too far. They are rather an unfortunate development on the body politic, and I am very glad indeed that this particular film was

Interim Supply
initiated by the C.B.C. and not by anyone connected with a government or with a political party.
The C.B.C. spokesmen, Mr. Chairman, stated from the beginning that they were anxious to film-and these are their words- "an intimate, candid, documentary study" of myself and the working of my office. They wanted to film conferences between myself and the ministers, as Mr. Ross McLean mentioned in his letter, and staff meetings, activities at my home and that sort of thing. They said they wanted to break new ground and produce an entirely new kind of t.v. film, and I think they succeeded.


John George Diefenbaker: After the clippings were done.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They emphasized that no similar film had ever been attempted by them and that new procedures and new arrangements for review would therefore be necessary in a film of this kind. This was the proposal made by the C.B.C.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I still hesitated. I was conscious that this might be a difficult, indeed an impossible operation, for a government corporation, and I don't mind admitting that I wish my hesitation had been more prolonged and had resulted in a negative decision. But it was emphasized again, to remove this hesitation, that for obvious reasons we would have to have the right, the customary right in pictures of this kind, the right of review of certain material to protect privacy because of the nature of the filming going on, to ensure good taste and the security of private conversations on questions of public policy.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I still had doubts even after these assurances, even after the filming began, so the producer, Mr. Ballen-tine, sent a letter to me on September 23 to remove these doubts and make it possible for him to go ahead with the production. We had every right to assume that this letter was sent with the knowledge and the approval of the C.B.C., because he was doing the job for them.
This letter is dated September 23, 1963 and it begins, "Dear Mr. Prime Minister" and includes these paragraphs:
I know that there is much we would like to film that you do not wish in the final documentary and the time you take to consider these requests is valuable. I can see that we are an embarrassment to you when you are with other people. I know of no way to eliminate these and the other problems entirely, but we can keep them to a minimum.

Then he goes on:	.
-the finished film-
I am quoting from his letter-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you going to table it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am reading from it.


John George Diefenbaker: Table it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not an official document. I take full responsibility for this letter and there is nothing in it I would not be glad to put on the record. I will read the whole letter so far as that is concerned, but I am trying to save the time of the committee so that we can get on with the business of the country, but this is the important part and bears on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of order, it will not waste any time of the committee if the right hon. gentleman just tables the letter, which he is required to do. He cannot simply pick out selected portions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. I understand
there is no specific ruling or practice in the house that requires or obligates an hon. member to table a letter, unless it is an official document, although I also understand it is the custom to do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, surely this is an official document coming from a person employed by a crown corporation. It is not just from an ordinary individual in the country.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is official in a way, but it is not a state document in that way. It is not an official document.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am reading parts of this letter-


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is something you want to conceal or you would read the whole of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I assure my hon. friend there is nothing I want to conceal and that this is a genuine document signed by the writer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The committee has a right to these documents. The Prime Minister cannot simply place before the committee those portions of them that he desires. This is an official document. It cannot be anything else, and to simply endeavour, by a sneering reference such as he just made, to get around

the necessity of producing the letter is simply not in keeping with the dignity of this chamber.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I know my right hon. friend is very suspicious-


John George Diefenbaker: No, not suspicious.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And I would hope I would not have to read some personal references to other people in this letter, but I will ask the man who wrote me the letter if I have his permission to put the whole letter on the record. I will be very glad to do so. I am reading portions which have been made public in the public press, to which he cannot obviously object because they deal with the arrangements covering the film. But I will get in touch with him as soon as this day's session is over and ask his permission to table the whole letter.


John George Diefenbaker: I don't think he will object.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to observe the ordinary courtesies in this matter, Mr. Chairman.


John George Diefenbaker: We also ask that the ordinary amenities be observed and that the Prime Minister do not hide behind any point of insinuation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a paragraph which has already been referred to in the press and which I should put in, in its textual form, because it is extremely important. It gets to the heart of the arrangements made with regard to the film, and Mr. Ballentine writes as follows:
The finished film will be yours to judge and approve before it is made public and, thus, will contain nothing to which you object.
Now, that is a perfectly obvious arrangement to make because of the nature of the filming that was going on in my own home and outside the house. Mr. Ballentine further wrote:
But in this kind of film, candid documentary, we need access to a wealth of material in order to catch the right material. One of the great limitations of the camera is that, unlike a writer, if it isn't present it can never know what happened.
Then he went on and said this:
We would, however, appreciate being with you during as many private times as you can allow, so that we can begin filming again when you permit.
Because I had for the time being suspended operations.
In any event, anything we get on film that you have reservations about can be corrected later.
Interim Supply
The fact that something is filmed does not compromise you or your staff in any way.
It was an effort on his part to remove my feeling that there would be a great deal of personal filming done. Indeed, that was insisted upon by the producer, that I must have some right of review in the interests of public security, and in case any secret conversations on policy were filmed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What secret conversations could you have as a member of the privy council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad to answer that question. There were conversations in my office with cabinet ministers and we talked about public policy. The cameraman wanted to have a film of this kind of operation going on, and it would be quite improper for a conversation between the Prime Minister and a minister to be filmed if it had dealt with some matter that had not been presented before the House of Commons; and we were anxious to make sure that would not happen in any public production.
Now, the film was subsequently discussed at its various stages, when we discussed it at all, with the C.B.C. and the producer on the basis of this agreement contained in a letter to me by the producer. But it was discussed with a full awareness on our part that there was need to respect the producer's editorial prerogative as well. The problem was to reconcile these two things. There was no transgression of editorial independence by our side and there was no request made either at that time or later by any member of the government or any representative of my office, or of mine, that the film in the form in which it was completed should be shown or not shown publicly. Never at any time was a request made that it be shown or not be shown. I make that statement as a member of this house and as leader of the government, and any insinuations to the contrary are false. And insinuations have been made in this house. Indeed, it has been charged in the house that we stopped the showing of this film. That charge is false.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Like your other statements.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What did the hon. member
say?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: "Like your other statements".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I will leave the hon. member in his gutter where he wallows so readily.

Interim Supply


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the second time in a week you have talked about gutters. You must be acquainted with them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the right hon. gentleman contain himself for a few moments and control his impatience. He will have his opportunity to speak and I am sure we will listen with interest to his remarks. In the meantime, let him keep silent.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is the second time in a week that the right hon. gentleman has talked about gutters. I wonder why he is always talking about gutters.


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The reason must be that I sit so close to the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish the right hon. gentleman would not single me out like this. It makes me nervous.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order concerning the quotations made by the Prime Minister not only from the letter he is reading now but the letter he read a moment or two ago. I refer Your Honour to pages 328 and 329 of May's thirteenth edition where it is set forth that as a principle of debate a minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or state paper not before the house unless he is prepared to lay it on the table. This is also referred to by Beauchesne in citation 159. To go further, I should like to quote from Sir Gilbert Campion's book, "Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons" where the following words appear at page 195:
The rule as laid down by May (p. 433) is, "A minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table."


Some hon. Members:: He is.


Erik Nielsen: If hon. members opposite will wait for a while, they will see the point. They are always so anxious to impose closure here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: The citation continues:
The rule is akin to the rule of evidence in courts of law, and is a recognized standard for ministerial practice. It only applies to direct quotation from a paper, not to a mere summary of arguments contained. Nor is it always enforceable in the case of actual quotation. In the first place it may be overridden by considerations affecting the

public interest. Nor does it apply to private memoranda or correspondence or generally to any papers the production of which would, but for it, be refused to the house as being beyond its jurisdiction. The conclusion from these divergent considerations is that papers which cannot be laid in toto should not be read or quoted in extracts.
I submit that having regard to the number of times this matter has been raised in the house, and because they concern a matter of public importance, that these papers, or any others from which the Prime Minister attempts to quote should be laid on the table of the house in order that all members, and the country at large, may have all the facts which the Prime Minister is urgently attempting, he says, to lay before us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps I may say a word on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Yukon. A similar point of order was raised previously when the Prime Minister was quoting from these letters. At that time you made a ruling, Mr. Chairman, to the effect that there was no obligation on the part of a minister, including the Prime Minister, to lay on the table any paper which was not a state paper. This is certainly not a state paper. You have made your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and it seems to me there is no validity in the point of order raised by the hon. member, particularly in view of the assurance given by the Prime Minister that he would consult with his correspondents, and that, with their permission, he would place on the table voluntarily the letters from which he is quoting.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Yukon has already spoken on this point of order. Does he wish to submit additional views?


Erik Nielsen: Very briefly, Your Honour. I would simply point out in rebuttal of the Minister of Labour that the volume from which I quoted-the volume written by Sir Gilbert Campion-contains, in addition, this illuminating quotation:
Nor is it always enforceable in the case of actual quotations. In the first place it may be overridden by considerations affecting the public interest.
I submit that this issue is of overriding public interest, and because of this fact the Prime Minister should want to facilitate the placing of all the facts before the committee. He can only do this, surely, if he tables the documents from which he is quoting.


Harold Edward Winch: I simply rise on what I hope is a point of order to make a suggestion to the members of this house. It is this. In view

of the interest in this matter, which has been the subject of discussion for many days, and perhaps for the sake of the dignity and decorum of parliament, we might give the Prime Minister the privilege of being allowed to make his statement uninterrupted, and if we are not satisfied with what he has to say, then we have the opportunity on this supply motion to go after him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: A cursory look at the sixteenth edition of May confirms the position I took earlier when this point of order was first raised. If the hon. member would look at page 460 of that volume, he would see the following:
A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table.
The word "state", of course, constitutes the distinction which must be drawn here. Then there is the following paragraph which appears at page 461:
A minister who summarizes a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the table. The rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.
Then it continues:
Indeed, it is obvious that, as the house deals only with public documents in its proceedings, it could not thus incidentally require the production of papers which, if moved for separately, would be refused as beyond its jurisdiction.
In other words, if the document is an official document the hon. member can move for its production. If it is not official, it does not have to be tabled if the Prime Minister, in this case, does not want to table it.
I might also refer the hon. member to citation 159(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda. On the 18th May, 1865, the attorney general, on being asked by Mr. Ferrard if he would lay upon the table a written statement and a letter to which he had referred on a previous day, in answering a question relative to the Leeds bankruptcy court, replied that he had made a statement to the house upon his own responsibility, and that the documents he had referred to being private, he could not lay them upon the table. Lord Robert Cecil contended that the papers, having been cited, should be produced; but the Speaker declared that this rule applied to public documents only.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to get the permission of the gentleman who wrote those letters so that voluntarily I 20220-298
Interim Supply
can table them or have someone read them into the record. Because there is nothing in those letters which I would wish to conceal from the House of Commons.
If I may continue, after the arrangements suggested to us by the C.B.C. were found acceptable and we agreed to proceed with the film, I must say that I lived not for one day but for a great many days under the eyes of a camera and tape recorder, as was the arrangement we made with those producing the film. It certainly was a candid camera. I lived and talked normally when the tape recorder and the camera were on hand, as did those with whom I was meeting. All this, Mr. Chairman was, of course, on the understanding that the interview filming or the actuality filming or the candid camera filming would produce a great deal of raw material from which anything within the category agreed upon for revisionary suggestions would be excluded in putting together the actual film as it was finally shown the press, and which I repeat I have never seen, myself- which deals, I hope with another point raised by the hon. member for Bow River.
I assumed from the beginning, Mr. Chairman, not having been told otherwise, that the film was being produced by the C.B.C. But we discovered as the filming went on that the nature of the working agreement between the C.B.C. and Intervideo Productions was such that the latter were in fact the actual producers, as agents for the C.B.C.
I was invited, Mr. Chairman, in accord with the arrangements made with the producer in my office, and to which I have referred in the letter, to see the first assembled version of the film, the first draft, on December 26 in Toronto, where I had been spending Christmas. And I did see that first draft; I said that in the house. That was not the film as it was finally produced and shown to the press.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was not the film; it was the first draft. I have never seen the final draft. It is apparently on that distinction between the first draft, which I saw and which was greatly changed, and the final draft, which I did not see, that the hon. member for Bow River based his charge that I should resign, and I am sorry to disappoint him once again.
As a result of seeing the rough first draft in Toronto, Mr. Chairman, I asked a member

Interim Supply
of my staff, in accordance with the arrangements suggested to us by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to bring to the attention of the producer certain sequences and tape recorded remarks which, in my view, were inappropriate and should be revised. They were in the categories for revision agreed upon. They were inappropriate because they were too personal, and there were one or two others which referred, in conversations with ministers, to matters which I thought should not be made public. They were under discussion, for one thing, in the House of Commons at that time. We were told by the producer for the C.B.C., we thought, that consideration would, of course, be given to these suggestions.
There was then a second review of the film in Ottawa, which was seen by members of my staff but not by me, a short time later, some time in January. Certain of the deletions which I had brought to the attention of the producer had been made; other deletions had not been made. The ones which had not been made included one which was a jocular and very personal remark made to me by Mrs. Pearson, who indeed did not realize when she made the remark that she was being filmed. It was a very personal remark. Second, there was a conversation with the Minister of Labour about the longshoremen's strike which was held in my office, and which I thought should not have been shown in the film. We had asked that this be taken out in the first instance, but it was not taken out of the second draft. Third, there was a reference to the Leader of the Opposition by the Clerk of the Privy Council. Mr. Robertson's comment was perfectly proper and entirely respectful in its mention of the Leader of the Opposition; but because it did mention the Leader of the Opposition by name I considered it to be an example of the type of remark and discussion taking place on a confidential basis which should be subject to revision and control, and which should not be included in the film; and that was not taken out.
These matters were brought to the attention of the C.B.C. and they were asked to reconsider the first suggestion that they should be excluded. They thought that this could be done at the time, and I was assured in January that there would be no special difficulty in meeting these suggestions, which were recognized to be, as I thought, quite reasonable.
There was a viewing of another revision of the film on January 21 in an office in

the east block. This was not the film as later
shown, but another revision. I saw part of this edition. It was the last version of the film I saw, and I saw only a small part of it because the sound and projection facilities were very bad. I also had to leave because I was going to Washington that afternoon to meet the President of the United States. I saw, however, 10 or 15 minutes of that version of the film. I learned when I got back that certain of the changes originally promised had, on the basis of that showing of the film, not yet been made.
On January 28 the director of the C.B.C. in charge of talks and programs of this kind wrote me, and again, Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to ask him to allow this letter to be tabled. The director asked me to agree that the arrangements proposed by Mr. Ballentine in his letter of September 23, and agreed to by me as the basis on which this production would proceed, be now set aside and that the program be completed in accordance with the normal principles and practices of the C.B.C. However, in his letter he added that they and the C.B.C. always bore in mind that I was fully entitled to raise objections to matters appearing in the program that touch on your private life or involve incidents or conversations normally and properly regarded as secret. I did not object to that proposal made by the representative of the C.B.C. but I replied that before any formal decision could be made by me there should be a further clarification of the relations between the corporation and Mr. Ballentine, which we had learned were becoming difficult, and we wished to know how this matter stood in regard to that relationship. The C.B.C. accepted that position.
Then later, Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. advised my office that they were anxious for us to see a print, as they put it, of the complete film. That was arranged for April 30, with three ministers and certain members of my office present. I was not there myself; I was not able to see that showing.


Erik Nielsen: Who were the ministers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Martin, Mr. Sharp and Mr. MacEachen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to observe that in this respect the conventions have always been adhered to in the past in this regard, and if there is to be criticism of people in my office, that criticism should be directed at me, not to officials by name who cannot defend themselves in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Was there anyone outside the staff of the Prime Minister's office?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will continue, Mr. Chairman.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, because you do not want to answer. What about the gentleman up there in the diplomatic gallery; was he present?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish my right hon. friend would not get so indignant and so impatient. If he would only just simmer down a little bit-


An hon. Member:: Just tell us the facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -as I will be expected to simmer down when he speaks. This was a perfectly normal procedure. The C.B.C. invited us; indeed, they asked us to see this completed print, and as the film focused so closely and confidentially, and indeed searchingly, on the office of the Prime Minister and on the processes of the government, I asked two or three of my colleagues to see it. I wanted the Minister of Labour especially to be there, because he had been photographed and tape-recorded particularly in talking with me. The ministers made varying comments on the film, but no view was expressed to the C.B.C., then or subsequently, as to the showing of it. I repeat that I did not then see, nor have I subsequently seen, the completed film.
On May 6, just after 9 a.m., the C.B.C. representative phoned a member of my office staff that the film was not to be shown; a decision, he said, taken by a panel of senior C.B.C. officials after watching a special viewing of the film.


Erik Nielsen: After, or before, cuts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This was the film that was shown at the meeting I have just mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That decision was told by the vice president of the Canadian Broad-20220-298i
Interim Supply
casting Corporation to a reporter of a Toronto newspaper on May 20, and I quote from the report. Mr. Fraser, the vice president, said:
The film Is simply not up to our standards.
That must have been very disappointing, after all the hard work:
The decision was made by network officials in Toronto. The lighting was poor, the sound was bad ...the camera work was so erratic as to make me dizzy.
The man in charge of the production on C.B.C., Mr. Haggan, said, according to the same report-and it was in quotation marks in the newspaper-
The decision not to show the film-
I want to repeat this. It has been put on the record but it should be put on the record again. This was said by the man directly responsible for the film:
The decision not to show the film was made in Toronto, not Ottawa, and there was absolutely no government pressure.. .There is no question of censorship.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is from the official of the C.B.C. who was concerned with this matter, and if he said there was no question of censorship, Mr. Chairman, am I to be pilloried by hon. gentlemen opposite for saying there was no censorship?


Erik Nielsen: Who asked for the cuts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was no question of heads rolling in connection with this film, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is an episode which will live long in the history of parliamentary relations with the C.B.C. On the same day, May 20, the vice president of the C.B.C. released the following statement. This is the official statement of the C.B.C. and it should, of course, be put on the record in its entirety, though it is well known, I am sure, to hon. members. This is the statement issued in Toronto on May 20, 1964:
The C.B.C. has decided not to broadcast a filmed television program on a day in the life of the Prime Minister, entitled "Mr. Pearson-the Man and the Office".
The program was filmed for the corporation by Intervideo Productions Limited of Toronto.
C.B.C. senior program officials in Toronto viewed the finished print May 5, shortly after it became available to them, and decided it was unacceptable for broadcast, a decision concurred in by the program council and other senior executives.
It is the corporation's decision that the film does not meet C.B.C. program standards. The camera work is distracting: the lighting and sound are

Interim Supply
of uneven quality and often poor, and the editing is inadequate. These shortcomings are further aggravated by the problem of timeliness in some of the program content. The corporation recognizes it may have set a difficult objective for the film production and accepts its share of responsibility in this matter.
But there can be no sharing of decisions on what is broadcast or not broadcast. This is the corporation's responsibility. The program will not be broadcast because it does not meet minimum C.B.C. standards.
That was the formal decision made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Hon. gentlemen may challenge that decision if they will, but there is a decision in black and white. If the C.B.C. is to have a position of independence and prestige, which its importance deserves in this country, surely it is not helping the C.B.C. to challenge the validity and accuracy of a statement issued formally by them in respect of such an important matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the discussions that have taken place, the charges that have been made and the insinuations that have been levelled, the C.B.C. is now referring the matter to its board of directors, who have met or are meeting. They are being given, as a board of directors, an opportunity to examine, presumably, the whole matter. I am speaking as a private member of this house, and though I know the risk involved in any kind of interference in this matter, in view of what has happened and in spite of the risk which may be entailed, I hope that the board of directors of the C.B.C. decide that in the circumstances this film should be shown to the Canadian public. If they make that decision, it will be their decision. If this film is shown I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this will be the end of the matter and we can get on with the business of legislation in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the longer the Prime Minister spoke, the deeper became the mystery connected with the non-production of this film and the clearer it became that censorship was applied by the government or representatives of the Prime Minister. And let that be understood to begin with, because it is underlined everywhere.
I am going to deal with one of the meetings that he did not deal with; I shall do that a little later on. I am going to review some of the matters that he did not deal with, and understandably so. Censorship has been defined-and I take the dictionary defi-

nition here-as "control over; making excisions or changes". If ever there was a document that received the full treatment, the life of the Prime Minister as it was reviewed by Mr. Ballentine, by picture and voice, was such a document; but the Prime Minister and those associated with him did not desire it to be seen by the Canadian people.
As the Prime Minister spoke I could only conclude this; removing the smokescreens of personalities that punctuated his remarks, the Prime Minister is in the most difficult and trying position he has ever been in. He is embarrassed by his friends, embarrassed by his staff, embarrassed by his fellow members in the cabinet-and he is embarrassed because the facts finally came out when Mr. Ballentine revealed them. He said: Let us get on with the business of parliament. There is nothing more important, than that this house should assure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shall not be a toy to be played with by the government of the day. The Prime Minister allowed this matter to drag on for two weeks before making a statement. He dealt very uncertainly with the contradictions and evasions pointed out by the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Yukon. He glossed over the fact that he had in fact seen the film in question. He says now that it was not the same one that exists today. It was one of the earlier ones before the operations took place thereon.
Sir, his statement today was, to anyone listening to it objectively, one that constituted an admission of a series of things that are inconsistent with any other hypothesis than that the government did not like the image in "Mr. Pearson". That is very clear.
I am going to deal in particular with the various events that took place right from the beginning. There is a strange situation here. The Prime Minister admits that there was an arrangement made with Mr. Ballentine whereby the Prime Minister or somebody associated with him would have a right of veto over the material produced. Cromwell once said: "Paint me, warts and all". In their several meetings the present government said in effect: Paint me, but put nothing in that will in any way deteriorate the image that Madison avenue has endeavoured to create.
Sir, there were veto rights. The Prime Minister says that the reason for the veto rights was so that matters of secrecy would not be made available to the Canadian people. I ask, why were matters of secrecy being discussed between the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet knowing that

not only were photographers and technicians present but that a record was being made? Surely that is a strange explanation. Certainly there should be no revelation of secrets, but why make them available by discussing such matters in the presence of these people?
The Prime Minister would brush this matter aside and say that there is really nothing to it. He would have us believe that it is a trivial situation and that parliament should not be wasting its time on it. I say immediately that censorship is clearly apparent, that interference with the C.B.C. was revealed by him in his remarks and that it is quite apparent that the reason for the suppression was the fact that the high officials of the C.B.C. realized that, to say the least, the government was not pleased with the production that was made.
What has been done here strikes at the very roots of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If I had time I should like to quote what the Minister of Transport said on one occasion. In this case the C.B.C. has allowed itself to become the government's cat's-paw because the Prime Minister and those associated with him did not like what they saw. He said that the deletions were in the interests of security. I ask him, whose security was affected when these various words of pseudo-profanity were removed? What security was affected when the deity was reduced from four to one in mentions by the Prime Minister? Surely such nonsense as he endeavoured to place before us today is answered as one goes into detail regarding the several meetings that took place.
No censorship? What were the ministers there for? It must have been a most enjoyable film because there were 12 reviews. I have seen people go to the movies for the first show and stay for the second because they enjoyed the picture, but for one or other of these five ministers to see this film in its several repetitions is something else again. Was it because of the entertainment value? Were they there purely and simply for the purpose of trying to understand the nature of the picture and to recommend excisions that were based on secrecy? What they were trying to do was to bury something that they did not want seen by the Canadian people.
The facts would never have come out, Mr. Chairman, if it had not been for the revelations made in two Toronto newspapers. We know the facts and there has been no denial. I want to review these various meetings because there is one in particular to which
Interim Supply
reference has not been made. Throughout the Prime Minister's speech Keith Davey was present in the diplomatic gallery, which is an indication that he has a diplomatic interest in the discussions that are taking place on this occasion. Why his interest? Why his presence on the 5th day of April? Why the presence of these other ministers? Why these various screenings?
I think we ought to review first some of the screenings because they reveal a most interesting situation. The first of the political screenings took place in December. The Prime Minister's press secretary was there and also his appointments secretary, Mr. Coutts, who I am informed has emerged as a promising candidate for Hollywood, and the only one who did. Mr. O'Hagan was also there on that occasion, December 23, I believe. They were worried about sequences. I am not going into the particulars. There was worry about the Coutts car sequence. That had nothing to do with secrecy. It was a revelation, I understand, but it had nothing to do with secrecy.
On the 26th of December, Boxing day, again they gathered and there were present the assistant press secretary, James Reagan, the Minister of Finance, who is quite a judge of the aesthetic although I understand he just happened to walk in on the thing and was not really a party to the gathering, and the Prime Minister. We are informed that what the Minister of Finance saw regarding the Prime Minister did not fill that minister with the assurance and feeling that it should be reproduced.
Then things started to move. The Prime Minister endeavoured to have the house believe that there was no interference, no censorship. Why all these meetings? On January 6, 1964 another meeting was held at the request of Mr. O'Hagan, the press secretary of the Prime Minister, and there they really got the scissors out. There, they really pointed out what should be removed. They asked that a remark by Mr. O'Hagan about the Canadian Press, a remark by the right hon. gentleman about a former press secretary of the opposition leader, an unguarded remark by the Minister of Labour, a facetious remark by a lady, comments by the government chauffeur, be removed. On that occasion there was no censorship. It was said that there were rather too many references to the deity. They finally decided that one reference would be enough and the rest would go by the board. Was that in the interests of security?

Interim Supply
Well, I would have liked to hear the remarks by the chauffeur, because they certainly could not have done anything. Then, there was a further one by Mr. O'Hagan. Did you ever see such anxiety on the part of a prime minister and those associated with him to see something that they were not going to interfere with? They just came to see, to listen. I hear the Prime Minister walked out on one showing because he said the tonal effects were such that he could not understand himself. I can only say, in the kindest way, that we have been in the same position this afternoon.
On January 21, there was a screening for the Prime Minister, but he walked out. He had to go somewhere, and I understand that. Following that, there were requests for more deletions. Sir, when the Prime Minister says, "We do not censor films on this side of the house", I wonder what it is. Was it an exercise in self-appreciation? Did they want to see themselves as others see them? Did something there not appeal to their finer, aesthetic sensibilities? Why these repeated showings?
On this occasion, there were a number of things, I think, that went out. One was the reference by the Clerk of the Privy Council to the Leader of the Opposition; one was the Coutts car sequence and the final deity was taken out altogether. You see, they are making progress. You can just see them, Mr. Chairman. There they sit.
I will come now to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who had a notebook. We wish he were here. Then, there was the screening on April 5 in the east block. I should like to have been present in that cave of Adullam, when all of these disgruntled people got together. The Prime Minister said he would not give me the names because he was not going to mention his staff. I do not want to know about his staff. I do not want him to have to defend his staff. They were simply carrying out their responsibilities under his direction. There was no screening in his office. It must have been a great get-together over there, just like the beginning of a premiere. There was everything except the searchlights and the autograph hunters.
Who was present? There was the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I don't know whether he was trying to find markets abroad for it. There was the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Mr. Tom Kent. Of course, he is on the Prime Minister's staff. However, Keith Davey was not on the staff.

What was he doing there? He was present on that occasion and he was in the diplomatic gallery today. What was he there for? I am sure it was not for the purpose in any way, according to the Prime Minister, of censorship. He was just there to enjoy himself. I hope he enjoyed himself more than the Prime Minister has since. Here was the whole office staff of image makers gathered together with their wives and secretaries.
Then, the Secretary of State for External Affairs decided that he had to do something in the interests of the observation of the international amenities. He looked the thing over, and he said: I object to these points. He said it conjured up in him feelings of regret, that there had been some mistake made. There were no politics in there, no censorship, but imagine a picture in which there were two particular views of Macdonald and none of Laurier. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that was not proper. Then, Emperor Haile Selassie came into it. Somebody said, is he the only emperor in the world today? I am informed that the Prime Minister said-this is all hearsay and if he says it did not take place I will immediately withdraw it with apologies-[DOT] "I think there is another emperor in Cambodia; you cannot keep up with these things''. They forgot altogether about the emperor of Japan, so out went any reference to Haile Selassie in the form in which it originated. This was an amazing performance.
There was a discussion of profanity, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs was worried about the effect of that language on Presbyterians and Methodists. Mr. Chairman, it would be ridiculous in any forum; but this is a serious effort on the part of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, facing great issues in Canada, and they are worrying about the use of words that are in general use within our country. Then it is said, and again if the Minister of Labour says it did not take place I will accept his word, that the Minister of Labour has a discerning taste for things aesthetic. He was not shocked by what he saw. He said it was highly amusing. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said it was an astounding document. Apparently they did not have agreement in cabinet that day, because to others that which was astounding and amazing was neither.
Now, that is just a short record. I could place a great deal more on the record were I to choose to do so but I do not want to bring up anything further in this connection because my time is disappearing. But I do

say this to the Prime Minister on the basis of what he said today, that while his words denied censorship what he said admitted censorship in every sense of the word. I said a moment ago I was not going to quote the Minister of Transport, but I think I should. This is what he said on January 18:
I may say that I fully subscribe to that view and X have, I think, In my private life and in my public life always been a supporter of public broadcasting for that reason, and for that reason only, because I do recognize the dangers of public broadcasting as they were manifest in some parts of Europe 25 years ago when some of us were rather younger than we are now, and as they still exist today in many totalitarian countries. This is potentially a very dangerous instrument in the hands of an unscrupulous government and it needs to be safeguarded in every possible way against control by the government as opposed to control by parliament itself in which people are freely elected whether or not the people who elect them like the government.
Sir, can anyone deny that the 12 showings were held, the multiplicity of showings, without the government having pointed out that they did not like what they saw? They admitted they tore it asunder. They did not remove-no; they asked, they suggested, they publicly stated in these meetings what they saw wrong in what was taking place.
Sir, it is a picture that is hard to understand. The Prime Minister said he did not have anything to do with it, that it was not he who asked to see it. I point out that on December 24 Mr. McLean of the C.B.C. had a request from the Prime Minister to see the film and it was stated he could see the film on Boxing day. Sir, all the way along, all through the piece, the Prime Minister was there examining, either in his own person or through the means of those of his staff. He cannot get away from that.
Why was it cancelled out? Well now, just a nod from the government might have its effect, but a continuing campaign of 12 meetings of condemnation and of suggestion could not leave the C.B.C. in any other position than, to use the immortal words of the Secretary of State, "heads might roll".
Why all these meetings? On May 7, after all these peregrinations back and forth, in Toronto, in Ottawa, in the various locations here, Mr. Ballentine wrote a letter to Mr. Alphonse Ouimet and asked about this and he received a letter, according to what he says, simply reading "Mr. Ballentine"-without "Yours truly" even added, stating the film did not meet with C.B.C. programming standards, that the camera work was distracting and that the quality of editing was inadequate. They did not find this out until
Interim Supply
ministers gathered together over and over again and looked upon what they saw, and were not pleased.
Sir, why was this stopped? On May 5 Mr. Ballentine was called into Mr. Haggan's office-and a more reputable man there is not anywhere to be found-and told the telecast had been scheduled for June 25. Later that day the final decision was made that it be not shown, and later on Mr. Haggan telephoned Mr. Ballentine and said he wanted to screen it one last time for his superiors, one last screening after all the screenings, and the screenings, and the screenings, and the screenings multiplied several times.
They had this screening in Toronto, attended by the top C.B.C. programming people, and at nine o'clock that night Mr. Haggan telephoned Mr. Ballentine and said the program officials in Toronto and Ottawa had decided not to have the film run. If ever there was a flagrant interference with the C.B.C. this is one, and all the Prime Minister does is endeavour to bring along a number of smokescreens. He did not answer this. He gave no explanation whatever regarding all these interesting revelations that were being made.
He told us today that any excisions were to be made on the basis of security. I ask this again as I did earlier, whose security? As I look at the government opposite and I see them as they join together, the security that they had in mind, as they interpreted the national security, was their own political security and nothing else.
From beginning to end the story is one that is now worse than it was following the explanation of the Prime Minister. Why did he have the head of his national Liberal organization present? Was that in order to assure security? I would like to have an answer to that. He talked today about calculated malevolence. Bringing forth the facts is not malevolence, but the discharge of constitutional responsibility. It is always the case that when people find themselves in a serious position, as he and those associated with him do, they resort to that type of personal abuse that was levied against the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Yukon.
Sir, I could say a great deal more but I simply set out in very terse detail the sinuous course taken by this government, and it got found out.
The Prime Minister said no pictures were taken in the cabinet. Well, all I have to say is that I would like to have this matter brought before a committee of parliament

Interim Supply
and Mr. Ballentine given the opportunity to give evidence. I must accept what the Prime Minister says, but Mr. Ballentine says it took place.
Mr. Ballentine, if he is correctly reported has said:
Shooting now continued in Ottawa, at the Prime Minister's home, in his office, in his private limousine as he drove to the east block, at a meeting of the cabinet in the privy council chamber.
This last occasion was on the day after the Ontario election and all members of the cabinet spoke for about 15 minutes on the political implications of that event.
It will be recalled that one or other of the ministers took a prominent part in that connection, and it was on that occasion the pictures were taken, according to Mr. Ballentine.
Later that day Mr. Pearson asked Mr. Ballentine not to use the cabinet sequence since his colleagues were shocked at the idea of their remarks being recorded for television. The producer assented.
If Mr. Ballentine is correctly reported, then all I can say is that I am surprised he would not know the difference between four or five ministers in the Prime Minister's office in the east block, and a whole lot of ministers in the privy council office. But that is not what the Prime Minister says, and I would like to hear the views of Mr. Ballentine in this connection. In order to get to the bottom of this and get the facts we have to have his story and know what has taken place.
Now I pass on for a moment and I refer to what happened on June 18. In this city a group of young men known as the Confederation club announced they were going to show something of what had taken place by revealing the particular print that they had. So far as the film negative is concerned it is held in escrow in Toronto by Pathe News, or some of those organizations.
Who interfered on this occasion? Was Mr. Ballentine advised that he would not be allowed to do this? Was he told he would be refused permission to use the film that belonged to him? Why was that done? Is it not further evidence of the suppression that is characteristic throughout the entire period of this continuing performance? It was not 60 days of decision; it was eight months of indecision. I think that is the number of months that it was before one group or another. It started in September. It went on for several weeks. The climax was on October 7, the day the Prime Minister had the pictures taken in his office. What happened in all those months? Why the change? Why was it that

for the first time, late in May, the order was given that this film was not to be produced?
Now what about it? The Canadian people have a right to see, not the expurgated edition, not the excised edition, not the edition to which scissors under the direction of ministers have been taken; the Canadian people have the right to see this film as it was originally produced, before so much of it found its way on to the cutting floor. What has taken place here is a serious act of censorship.
I cannot understand it. Last evening, on the national television network, the C.B.C., there was not one reference to what took place yesterday. Not a word. Why? Why was there nothing in this regard? What took place is just as serious as censoring a newspaper article of which one does not approve. Indeed, it is immeasurably worse, because this is a government corporation. Do you mean to tell me, sir, that the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister and the members of the Prime Minister's staff and Keith Davey are able to fill the positions of producers and directors, adding here, snipping there, chopping somewhere else-all for artistic considerations or for security purposes? That is what the Prime Minister said. I do not intend to quote what the Minister of Finance was alleged to have said. But I can imagine what happened in the C.B.C. when word came to them: "Paul does not like it." I can just see the fluttering of the dovecots as they began to realize that the Secretary of State for External Affairs thought something was wrong.
Be that as it may, this film should be restored, and what the image makers tore asunder should be replaced and put together. To do otherwise, to produce what has been revised, to produce what has gone through the hopper of governmental disinfection, is not what we are entitled to expect. What we are entitled to see is the film which was originally produced, subject to one consideration-that if there is anything at all affecting national security, no one would ask that it be produced.
On the other hand, what decisions, what legislation, what planning on the part of the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers could possibly justify the discussion of security matters in these circumstances, whether in the cabinet room or in the Prime Minister's office?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That was one of the most serious revelations made this afternoon. I can understand the Prime Minister's feelings in this situation. All of us have a great deal more hindsight than we have foresight. He laid the foundations for what he wanted. The private secretaries, the executive secretaries and the president or the chairman of the national organization had their ideas. The C.B.C. made a mistake when it accepted the veto right of anyone in that agreement which was entered into and accepted by the Prime Minister. I should like to see the letter which was written to him by Mr. Ballentine in that connection or on his behalf.
The picture was produced. I can just see them. How they must have enjoyed it. They asked: Show it over and over again; give it to us again. And every time they looked at it they had a few more qualifications to make, a few more subtractions, a few more diminutions. Finally, even what was then produced did not meet with the high standards of the government. They saw much wrong in it; they saw things in it which were detrimental to the national security-which I define as being the political security of the Liberal party, translated into higher spheres by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
There has not been a more serious matter before parliament than this. Now the board of governors is meeting. What a dish of crow has been handed to them. Mr. Ouimet says there has been no improvement in the technical qualifications of the film. Yet now, because, as he said, there are larger matters to be considered, he has placed this question before the board. These are his words:
The corporation must at all times be careful not to confuse political matters with questions of broadcast responsibility.
Interim Supply
That is what this government put the corporation in the position of doing. With respect to the present situation it does not appear to the corporation that parliament has clearly indicated a view.
Then he says this:
The corporation has already taken a broadcast decision with respect to this film. That decision was based solely on the professional broadcasting standards of the corporation which are used to judge such matters. The film has not changed and the standards have not changed.
I accept that statement. Then I ask: What were you people doing there? What were you doing there with this great coterie and retinue, with all the staff surrounding you? I end with these words from the quotation:
Consequently, the corporation must determine whether more compelling factors now exist in the realm of the public interest.
What are the more compelling factors? The most compelling up to date has been the interference on the part of this government. What is more compelling than that?


Mr. Fisher:: May I raise one point in connection with the tabling of the letters?


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that we sit beyond six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is not an argumentative point. I merely wish to point out that on Wednesday, June 17 the house passed an order that these particular letters be produced. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that this would give him an opportunity to table the letters today so that they may be on the record.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 25, 1964