1964-04-02

Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-85, to amend the Criminal Code (commutation of death sentence).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Anthony Robert Temple: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that in the case of an appeal from a death sentence to the court of appeal, the death sentence shall be commuted to life imprisonment where the court has not been unanimous in confirming the conviction.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of Transport that I am sorry I did not give him notice of this question, but it has to do with an article appearing in the western press entitled-


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am afraid I did not catch the name of the periodical.


John George Diefenbaker: -"Pickersgill to outline rail abandonment stand". Mr. Thatcher announced this the other evening in Saskatchewan. I would like the minister to confirm or deny that the position of the government is that there will be no abandonment allowed either to the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. until the federal government has fully examined all the circumstances and made a thorough study of all the problems involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman, being an old and experienced member of the house, knows perfectly well that his question is totally out of order because he is asking me to confirm or deny
a newspaper report, which our standing orders forbid us to do. But since the right hon. gentleman has given me a very welcome opportunity to say something about this subject, I am very happy to make a brief statement about it.
My statement is this. The policy of this government in this matter is well known. It was iterated and reiterated a dozen times by my predecessor at the last session of parliament, and it is a policy that was instituted by the right hon. gentleman's government, which he seems to have forgotten. It is that the railways were invited to indicate to the board of transport commissioners all the lines that they were even considering abandoning, on the understanding that no abandonments would take place and no hearings would be held until the new legislation had been disposed of.
That, we thought, was one of the good things done by the previous administration. We still think this is a good idea, and I am happy to say that was the position the railways agreed to take. I do not know that we could have imposed it on the railways, or at least on one of them, but they accepted it.
My hon. friend the President of the Privy Council gave notice in the last session of parliament of a resolution to precede a bill which was set out in detail in Votes and Proceedings, I think on December 6, and it is the intention of the government to recommend to parliament, if the house approves the appropriate resolution, a bill to set up a railway branch line rationalization authority which, if parliament also approves, would be under the jurisdiction of my hon. friend from Calgary South, the Minister of Agriculture, who naturally would have at heart the interests of the most important of all users of the railways, namely the wheat farmers.
It was not by accident that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister chose the Minister of Agriculture for this responsibility, because he felt that this would be a tangible way of indicating to the farmers of western Canada that the interests of the producers would be put first and the balance sheets of the railways, as I said the other day, would have to take second place in this matter.
That is the policy of the government. I think it is a wise and sound policy. I think it is wiser and sounder because of the great

Inquiries of the Ministry success which the wheat board has had under this government in selling wheat all over the world. I only hope that some day before this session is over we will be allowed to get on with this legislation and get it through the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his terse reply, particularly his statement that in the policy announced he intends to follow in the footsteps of the government of which I had the honour to be the head. I am also glad to learn of the circumstances under which the Minister of Agriculture gets his appointments. I thought it was because the rest of the Liberal party had been abandoned, leaving him as the only qualified candidate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman misunderstood one thing I said. I never suggested that we were going to follow in his footsteps, because his administration's footsteps got nowhere. We do expect to get somewhere.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question. The Minister of Transport has indicated that it was no accident that the Prime Minister had chosen the Minister of Agriculture for this responsibility. Is this in any way to be interpreted as meaning that the other responsibilities which were placed on the Minister of Agriculture were accidental?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir. It is an indication that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister thought that the Minister of Agriculture, being a farmer living in western Canada and representing a western constituency, could do this job better than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Could I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the Minister of Agriculture is the only Liberal member from either Alberta or Saskatchewan?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That situation will be changed very shortly, I hope.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture now knows that he was appointed not because the rest of the Liberals had been abandoned but because of his qualifications. I now ask the hon. gentleman, in view of his last statement, is he going to provide for early by-elections in Saskatoon and also in Nipissing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that in this, as in other respects, we will be able to move a little faster than the right hon. gentleman did.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I directed a question to the Minister of Justice with respect to the fact that an anonymous group were seeking to buy out the Burns meat packing company. It has now been confirmed that the Toronto group in question has succeeded in purchasing the company, and I ask the minister whether this matter has been looked into by the restrictive trade practices branch of his department to see whether there is any indication that the combines legislation is being contravened.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this question was asked two or three weeks ago, but if the minister wants to answer that is fine.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It could hardly be asked two or three weeks ago since the deal was completed only yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to have to take exception, but there have been rumours about this deal for about a month and a half.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order-and I do not intend to enter into a debate with the Chair-I pointed out that there were rumours and I asked the minister about them. He stated he would take the question as notice. I now ask him to answer it, in view of the fact that the rumours have been confirmed and the takeover has been completed. I do not see why I should have to argue with the Chair on a simple question which the minister should be prepared to answer.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the director of investigation and research presently has that matter under consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, may I ask whether any action is being taken by the minister's department with reference to the last investigation into the meat packing industry, which was conducted by the restrictive trade practices branch?


Guy Favreau: I think, Mr. Speaker, this would be a question for the order paper.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieffe-L'Assompfion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Does the minister intend to go to Quebec city to assist the Prime Minister of Canada who is wrecking the federal-provincial conference?


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



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry, who is responsible for the implementation of certain policies concerning feed grain.
Could the minister tell us when he intends to announce his policy as regards subsidies for the transportation of feed grain by trucks, in the province of Quebec, something which is now being done in Ontario?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, a meeting is to be held within a few weeks, and the people chiefly concerned will be asked to attend.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the minister give us the names of the main people who will be invited to that meeting?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, until those people have been personally invited, I think it would be better for me not to answer that question.



SOYBEANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Ont.):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Knowing of the minister's stand as to encouragement of the soybean growers of Ontario, can they count on his support of their representations to the government for a floor price of $2.50 per bushel?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, unless the Acting Prime Minister wishes to answer-


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: I am sure the hon. gentleman knows of my long interest in this subject, and that answers the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



REPORTED NEW PRACTICE OF SENDING CHEQUES BY MAIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour based on a newspaper report from my constituency that unemployment insurance cheques are now being sent to jobless men and women by mail, rather than having the recipients call for them. Has this new policy been adopted, as the newspaper report puts it, to "avoid line-ups at unemployment insurance offices"?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a growing practice of distributing benefits by mail, and the commission has found this to be very satisfactory.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Could I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him, before he becomes overburdened with new duties or completely unburdened of his present ones, whether he has yet made a decision about the grain elevator at Prince Rupert.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are still considering it.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Triniiy-Concepiion):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, or in his absence to the Acting Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister's attention been brought to the fact that trawls with hooks, baited with herring, are proposed to be used in the catching of seals in the gulf of St. Lawrence near the Magdalen islands? If not, in view of the cruelty of this method would the minister have an immediate investigation made?


Hon. J. Waison MacNaught (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and try to bring in an answer tomorrow.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Industry. Is there any country in the world other than Canada that taxes production machinery?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have not got all the taxation laws of all the 142 countries of the world at my finger tips, so I will take the question as notice.



AUTOMOBILE PARTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production. Following a report to the effect that United States are planning to use reprisals in protest against the Canadian government decision to give assistance to the automotive industry, can the minister tell us what stage has been reached in the implementation of the formula he has devised to promote the automotive industry development in Canada?
In addition, can he tell the house what concrete results have been derived from this policy up to this time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, needless to say that I cannot go into details at this stage. However, I can say that results to date indicate great success. However, I do not think that the time is right to give a complete report.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the great success indicated by the minister, can he tell the house if he is considering other similar projects which would be implemented in eastern Canada with as much success?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, successful results are obtained of course in areas where the automobile industry has settled in Canada.
As far as eastern Canada is concerned, the industry which settled there seems to be meeting with success also.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would care to make a statement respecting the low water levels now prevailing in lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence river.
[Mr. Stenson.l


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been the subject of a number of questions from members of the house in recent weeks. I might say at once that the great lakes system is one of the more complex drainage systems in all the world, and because our concern is very great I would much prefer to take this question as notice and make a full statement either tomorrow or Monday.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is investigating this matter will he also see to it that when ship diversions take place because of low water in the St. Lawrence, such diversions will go to Halifax and Saint John rather than New York as was the case last year?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if consideration is being given to the development of the Grand canal system to cope with the continuing problem that has been raised by the hon. member for Leeds.


Arthur Laing: We are aware of the proposal in respect of the Grand canal.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Roy Tucker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him if he received a request to send an icebreaker to the assistance of the sealing ship Lady Johnson off the east coast of Newfoundland. If so, what success did the icebreaker have in freeing the ship?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that unless there is special urgency to this question, it should be put on the order paper.


James Roy Tucker: The urgency is that there is a crew of 18 on that ship, and in view of the danger I think the question is important.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can say now that the mission was successful.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he tell the house whether the Quebec and Newfoundland provincial authorities will

be consulted before the federal government proceeds with the appointment to the exchequer court of a judge whose duties will be to hear divorce cases from these two provinces?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this question is of great urgency. Anyhow, it should be put personnally to the minister rather than in the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) asked me a question which implied that officers' commissions were written in English only. I am pleased to inform my hon. friend that officers' commissions have always been, and still are, obtainable in both languages. The officer in question can select either language.
I should also inform my hon. friend that a notice was sent to all cadet officers reminding them that they may obtain their commissions in the language of their choice.



ARMOURY GUARDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: On Monday last the hon. member for Timiskaming inquired if official status had been given to the people hired as guards for armouries. He also asked if the veterans preference applied to those chosen for guard duty.
In reply to the first part of his question, I can inform him that these men have been hired as watchmen. In so far as the veterans preference is concerned, these men are employed on a temporary basis under the authority of section 24 of the Civil Service Act, and while the majority are entitled to statutory preference for war service, in view of the temporary nature of the employment this was not one of the conditions imposed.
I might add that it has now been determined that watchmen will be required for an indefinite period and the establishment of civil service classified positions has been requested. When authority has been received, normal recruiting action by the civil service commission will be undertaken to appoint, on a regular basis, qualified applicants for these positions.
20220-108i
Supply-External Affairs LABOUR CONDITIONS



REVIEW OF FORMULA TO DETERMINE DESIGNATED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion for the production of papers."]
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production, and I hope that this time I will receive a more complete answer.
Did the minister revise the criteria used to designate the depressed areas of this country, and may we expect to have soon a list of the new areas to be designated?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already announced that a revision will be made next summer, when new areas will be announced, if any.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of certain observations that have been made, has there been a change in the criteria used to determine these areas?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister give the house the assurance that there will be consultation with the provinces prior to the setting up of new criteria?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
le. Department administration including the expenses of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ministerial meeting in Canada, May, 1963, $56,000.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When we were discussing this item at six o'clock yesterday I was in the process of making a few remarks on two aspects of the minister's statement. The first had to do with NATO, and I was asking the minister if he would, in the course of this discussion, tell the committee something about the proposal to create a NATO multilateral nuclear force. I think this committee and the people of Canada are entitled to know what proposals have been made in this regard and whether Canada has received any invitation to participate in such a force. I think too we should like some assurance from the government that Canada will not participate until this matter has been fully discussed in the House of Commons.

Supply-External Affairs
There are many Canadians who support NATO in its role of seeking to deter military aggression in Europe but who, nevertheless, would be strongly opposed to a multinational nuclear force being set up by that organization. I think it has been commonly known that for some years West Germany has been exceedingly anxious to become an independent nuclear power. There are many of us who feel that the setting up of a multinational nuclear force would simply be using the back door in order to accomplish this end, and I should certainly like to have some assurance from the minister that no such step will be taken by Canada and that if Canada is approached in this regard the matter will be thoroughly discussed in this house. We have already had some experience of the government entering into treaties for the acquisition of nuclear arms without referring those treaties to parliament. We certainly do not want to wake up one morning to find that a multinational nuclear force has been established, that Canada is a member of such a force, and that this house has had no voice in reaching that decision.
The second matter about which I was desirous of making some comment is the part Canada is playing in the peace keeping assignment on the island of Cyprus. I think we all recognize that this is a role which Canada is ideally fitted to play. We have neither the wealth nor the technological know-how to be a nuclear power, but we have a part to play; and the most effective role we can perform is that of contributing to peace keeping forces in various parts of the world under the direct control and direction of the United Nations.
While I agree with all that has been said about the inequity of Canada having to bear the entire cost, nevertheless I believe that whatever the expenditures we are making in this regard, they will be much more worth while than many of the expenditures we have made in the past for military hardware which became obsolete before it was produced. But as to the cost of these operations, I certainly think the cost of any peace keeping operation ought to be borne by all the nations which belong to the United Nations.
I think most Canadians are wholeheartedly in support of Canada making this kind of contribution to the peace of the world. However we should recognize two things; first, that in a delicate situation such as this the Secretary of State for External Affairs finds himself in a difficult position. He is dealing with the United Nations, and if the communications which are sent to him are secret and confidential he has to recognize that fact. I think we must also recognize that when we turn forces over to the United

Nations they come under United Nations command, and that to some extent we have lost our national sovereignty in that respect. On the other hand I think we, as members of parliament, ought to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we hold him accountable and responsible for seeing to it that the troops which Canada contributes to United Nations peace keeping operations are fully protected and are given every opportunity to carry out effectively the task which has been assigned to them.
The second thing which has to be recognized is that the secretary general of the United Nations is in an equally difficult position. He has, in Cyprus particularly, a most delicate mission to perform. This is not an instance in which United Nations forces are dealing merely with aggression. In that case the operation, though it might be a serious one, would be comparatively simple; where an act of aggression has been committed the responsibility of the United Nations is to stop the aggressor and protect the victim nation. But in Cyprus we are dealing with a civil war, and a civil war which is all the more serious because it affects two neighbouring nations which gave every indication of their intention to intervene. Had they intervened they could easily have started a conflagration which might have spread throughout the Mediterranean and perhaps throughout the world.
In carrying out the instructions of the security council to send a peace keeping force to Cyprus the secretary general of the United Nations had, therefore, to have the consent and the authorization of the government of that country. In consequence I am sure that a certain amount of negotiation and compromise was found necessary.
But bearing this in mind, I am sure that we as members of parliament must make it clear both to the secretary general of the United Nations and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is our spokesman before that body, that there are three things about which we are concerned. We are concerned, first of all, that the Canadian troops who have become part of the United Nations peace keeping force shall have full and complete authority to protect themselves at all times and take whatever measures may be necessary to carry out effectively the task which has been assigned to them. They must never be allowed, because of red tape, to find themselves in a situation in which the directives they have been given are inadequate to provide complete protection. They must never find themselves in a position where those directives are so indefinite that

they do not give them the clearest possible mandate to do the job which they have been sent to Cyprus to do.
The second thing we have to make clear to the secretary general is that the Canadian forces must not be hampered in carrying out their duties; that once an agreement has been reached with the government of Cyprus the United Nations forces must have freedom of movement and access to whatever areas require their presence, and that they will not be hamstrung by interference or manipulation.
Third, I think we have to make it clear to the United Nations that in our opinion there must be an eventual disarming of the guerrilla forces on the island of Cyprus. As long as there are bands of armed civilians roaming about Cyprus there is almost certain to be trouble, and this is almost certain to involve the United Nations peace force. I know it has been suggested in press reports from Cyprus that the government of Cyprus would prefer that any disarming of civilians be left to the Cypriot government. Normally this would seem to be a logical conclusion. The fact remains, however, that it is doubtful whether the Turkish Cypriots would be as prepared to accept disarming by the Greek Cypriots as they would by the United Nations forces.
The situation is further complicated by the reports, which I presume are accurate, that the Cypriot government has already taken many of their armed civilians into the militia, and therefore they would not normally be disarmed. I think it is very easy to visualize what will happen. If the Greek Cypriots endeavour to disarm the Turkish Cypriots while the Greek Cypriots themselves continue to be armed, under the pretence that they are part of the militia, it seems to me that the whole armed conflict will erupt once again. I know this has to be negotiated and that it is not easy to reach these goals quickly, but I think it has to be said in this parliament and it has to be recognized by the secretary general of the United Nations that we would feel much easier in our minds if steps were taken promptly to begin the disarming of civilian guerrillas, both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, thereby lessening the likelihood of bloodshed and lessening the chance that the United Nations peace keeping forces, the Canadians amongst them, might be caught in a crossfire between these two groups.
Mr. Chairman, I think we in this parliament have to recognize that the human race is now in the process of building something which is entirely new in human history. We are seeking to build, brick by brick, a system of collective security based on the rule of law. There aren't any precedents; there are no established patterns, and we have nc
Supply-External Affairs techniques for carrying this out. Men have long dreamed of the idea of the rule of international law, but to build up the kind of forces required, to decide the chain of command, to agree on the methods that will be used has to be worked out painfully and painstakingly. Therefore I think we have to be extremely patient. We have to recognize that if we are to have collective security based on the rule of law, there must be some surrender of national sovereignty both by any nation where a peace keeping force is operating and by the nations which contribute forces to the international police force. For that reason one cannot take too hard and fast a position. We have to feel our way. We will have to take a pragmatic approach. It will have to be a process of trial and error.
I think we are fortunate in the secretary general of the United Nations, who is a very distinguished gentleman. We are fortunate in the mediator who has been selected to endeavour to bring together the various factions in Cyprus. But I think as members of this house it is our responsibility to remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the secretary general of the United Nations that we, having decided to send these men to Cyprus, feel we have a responsibility, and that we intend to discharge that responsibility and shall keep on insisting that the terms of reference, the directives and the status of forces agreement which is now being negotiated shall all take cognizance of the three points I have mentioned; namely, the complete right of self defence and full protection for our forces; free movement and the right to go wherever it is necessary to go to perform their duties, and that we urge upon the United Nations and upon the government of Cyprus the necessity for moving very quickly toward the disarming of the guerrilla bands as a first step toward bringing peace and harmony on the island of Cyprus.
I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will express these concerns to the secretary general of the United Nations, and that he will tell the officers of the United Nations that the members of parliament and the people of Canada are concerned and would like to know more about the terms of reference and the directives, because we hold those who sit in positions of responsibility accountable for the Canadians whose lives and well being we have placed at the disposal of the international police force.


The Chairman:: Shall this vote carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to cover the ground already covered, but last evening I asked a number of questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and was far from satisfied with the
1704	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs answers I received. I again return to the question that was mentioned in a passing way by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the leader of the New Democratic party. I refer to the circumstances under which Canadians will serve in the force in Cyprus.
I am not here for the purpose of endeavouring to secure information which ought not to be available to us, but I think when the Canadian people provide an armed force which constitutes a large part of the peace keeping force in Cyprus, and pay the shot as well, parliament has the right to the information which has not yet been vouchsafed to us.
I mention this because the position taken by the minister last evening was that the information for which I asked would cause great difficulty if it were given. Indeed, he said it would be a matter of serious concern. I know he was not too serious when he said that, although when one reads it in Hansard-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was very serious.


John George Diefenbaker: I will deal with the question of seriousness in a moment. These words are so far removed from the usual way the hon. member replies to questions that I am going to place them on Hansard again. He said, as reported at page 1678:
I am sure my hon. friend would not want the country to get the impression that they cannot defend themselves.
I am the one he was referring to as "my hon. friend".
I assure my hon. friend that the directives will enable them to defend themselves to the full. I must say to my right hon. friend, the former prime minister, that knowing the responsibilities of government and knowing the situation in Cyprus, what he said today was not calculated to assist in the discharge of that very difficult assignment.
That was simply a ridiculous coup monte and nothing else. The information I asked for is available in the press. Surely the minister would not have the committee believe that that which is available in the press should not be available to parliament. I have an article before me which appeared in a newspaper of yesterday's date, and I should like to quote from it. It has to do with an interview which the writer of the article had with Archbishop Makarios.
British officers and soldiers have complained bitterly that they have been powerless to keep the peace without the right to disarm civilians, to make arrests, order curfews, or remove roadblocks.
The United Nations force is operating under the same limitations-
I ask the minister whether it is not correct that these limitations have been imposed, that they are known to exist. I suggest to him that details respecting these limitations, about which fullest information has been given to the press, should be revealed to parliament. I


recognize there are matters of security which do limit the extent of the information which can be given, but I hope the hon. gentleman is not falling into a habit which has become all too common with ministers opposite, namely that of refusing to give facts to parliament or indeed of presenting facts in a way which does not reveal the true situation.
We in Canada are most desirous to do our part to ensure and maintain the peace of the world within the limitations which are incident to our population and position. We are going to spend several million dollars on this force. We are doing so when certain of the powerful nations of the world which are members of the United Nations are deliberately refusing to make contributions. I could point to the U.S.S.R., which is in default I believe some $59 million; France is in default some $40 million for the peace keeping operations; and other countries as well refuse to play their part even in assisting the financing of the peace keeping operations which are of the essence of an effective United Nations. That being so, surely Canada has the right to know the circumstances under which this force, part of it placed under United Nations command, is going to operate. I ask specifically and within those limitations of security which are necessary why it is that members of parliament have to secure information from the press rather than in parliament.
There is another matter which has recently arisen, within the last few days, concerning NATO. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam referred to this body. I am not as optimistic as I was about the future of NATO. There has been a weakening of that body and in its collective purposes during the last couple of years. That is understandable. So long as there is threat of armed conflict, those who are joined together in concert to meet a potential danger or threat tend to remain united. When the threat is lifted the cement, as it were, which holds the organization together becomes weakened. I believe in this institution. I do not think we would be here had it not been born some 15 years ago and stood effectively united against the overwhelming threat which has faced not only western Europe but all mankind.
However, those who believe that the threat is now gone belong to a school who have not carefully studied events since 1945. Every now and then there is a defrosting between east and west. Every now and then there have been hopes that new detentes have been established, but after a period of time the west is suddenly brought to the realization that the aims and purposes of communism are unchanged and that these detentes, if you can

call them that, have often simply been detours on the part of the U.S.S.R. That being so, we must maintain NATO.
Therefore I ask the minister why it is that he or his office has taken the unprecedented step in the last few days of cancelling the biennial tour of Canada by the young European NATO political leaders. I understand that the American segment of the tour will go on as scheduled but that the normal four days' stay in Canada of these young, potential political leaders has been withdrawn. The information I have is that it was at the suggestion of the Department of External Affairs. I have a great deal of information on the subject but I shall not read it into the record.
I know that when young Canadians went abroad in 1961 and 1962 they learned more about NATO than they could have learned in any other way, and they came back to Canada imbued with an appreciation of and an enthusiasm for the institution, and were able to carry this message to their respective colleges and universities. This group which was to come consists of some 25 youth leaders. Two years ago I met a group like this when they came to Canada. They formed a warm impression of Canadian friendship and, above all, they came to understand the determination of Canada to stand with NATO.
I hope it is not correct that these NATO country youth leaders are to be told Canada is not interested in them. Unless they are welcomed here that is the impression they will get. I have the correspondence that has passed between the Department of External Affairs and interested persons in Canada, and I trust the minister will have this matter looked into at once. Canada cannot afford to ostracize herself from the opportunity to have the representatives of 15 countries come here. We place ourselves in a most unenviable position unless whatever directions have been given in this connection are revoked. If they are not revoked it will mean these young people will come to North America and not be the guests of a country that did so much to build up NATO.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John George Diefenbaker: No. I do not want it carried without hearing what the minister has to say on these two matters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not want to take up the subject matter of last night's discussion, but the right hon. gentleman has dealt with it again today and perhaps I owe it to him to make a reference.
I appreciate the attitude he takes as to the desirability of the house being fully informed on information that might be given without
Supply-External Affairs prejudice to the operation of the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus.
As I said last night, the right hon. gentleman had considerable experience as prime minister during the operations of the United Nations peace keeping force in the Congo, and I may recall that in 1961 a question was put to him with regard to the tragic loss of life among the Ghanaian contingent participating in that force. Happily in that particular situation Canadians were not involved, but the tragic circumstances provoked a question as to the right of the Canadian troops to defend themselves.
There was no doubt that the troops from Canada, and others in the United Nations force, had a right to defend themselves in that situation to the fullest possible extent, as they have on Cyprus. But I was interested in the reply the right hon. gentleman gave on that occasion, which can be found at page 4539 of Hansard for Tuesday, May 9, 1961. I mention this not because I wish to be controversial but because I want to state the problem. I am sure this will be appreciated by the right hon. gentleman and other members of the committee. On that occasion he said:
Canadian military personnel in the Congo are assigned to the United Nations and are under the authority of the United Nations Congo command. It is the United Nations command which has direct responsibility for the safety of United Nations troops, as well as for their effectiveness in carrying out their tasks.
He continued:
On the question of self defence, United Nations troops in the Congo are still under basically the same orders as those issued by the first United Nations commander, General Von Horn. These orders provided, in general, that members of the United Nations forces are authorized to use their weapons in self defence and to maintain positions which are considered tactically essential to the United Nations operations. These orders have been reinforced and given more detailed interpretation by the current commander, General McEoin.
Then he went on:
In the light of the special difficulties and dangers faced by this non-combatant peace keeping United Nations operation, Canadian members of the force have been given specific instructions by their Canadian commanding officer, derived from instructions issued by the United Nations commander. In essence the orders to Canadian troops provide that they may use their weapons for defence in certain clearly defined circumstances. Resort to force is, of course, to be used only if normal discussion or negotiation has proved impossible or unavailing.
No one took exception to that statement. Indeed, the present Prime Minister commented, inter alia, as recorded at page 4540 of Hansard for that date:
It may not be easy to lay down, in the words of the Prime Minister, the clearly defined circumstances which would justify the use of defensive

Supply-External Affairs
weapons, but X am sure every effort will be made by the United Nations to make sure that in the attempt to do that, the safety and security of those concerned is the first consideration.
It occurred to me that this exchange offered a parallel to the situation which currently engages our attention. The language which I used yesterday about the right of self defence, and more particularly a few days ago on orders of the day, was admittedly in general terms but not any more general, and understandably so, than the language used by the right hon. gentleman in the difficult circumstances that confronted the United Nations peace keeping force in the Congo.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we must keep before us three documents; first of all, the terms of reference of the force, the directives given by the United Nations to the force commander and by the force commander to those under his command in Cyprus; and then there is the status of forces agreement.
With regard to the directives, I must say that these are in their very nature private and cannot, for the reasons I stated yesterday and on other occasions when this matter was discussed, be made public. In every operation of the United Nations this has been the practice, no less so in the case of the Congo than for other peace keeping operations of the United Nations. I suppose those with much greater military experience than I have had would say that this is true in any military operation, whether it be fully military or, as in this case, partly military.
With regard to the terms of reference of the United Nations force, and so we will have a complete record of this whole aspect of the problem, I should like to set out the terms of reference as provided in the resolution passed by the security council on March 4. They are in the following general words:
Recommends that the function of the force should be, in the interests of preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order and return to normal conditions.
At first glance those words may seem to be far too general to offer an adequate basis for the activities of the United Nations force. I have compared these terms of reference with the terms of reference in other such basic documents of the United Nations, and I find that the language, while differing in some particulars, is basically the same. These particular terms of reference were carefully chosen and will remain the source of authority for the directives which will be issued to the force from time to time.
These directives are not immutable in character. They may be changed, and as situations arise will undoubtedly be varied

by new directives. It is obvious that in the discharge of the function of the force these directives, if made public, would not assist the very purpose for which the force was established and sent to Cyprus. This is particularly so in this situation which, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam pointed out, involves a rivalry between two communities on the island and an interest on the part of two neighbouring states.
It will be seen that the terms of reference and functions of the force empower the force, first, to prevent a recurrence of fighting; second, to contribute as necessary to the maintenance and restoration of law and order; and third, to promote a return to normal conditions. These terms of reference are sufficiently broad to cover an infinite variety of situations and activities in which the force may become involved without unnecessarily tying the hands of the force and of the force commander as to how he is to discharge his heavy responsibilities. I believe that the United Nations command will be in a position to deal with almost any situation, and that the directives which will flow from the terms of reference will be sufficiently elastic to allow the Canadian and other forces both to protect themselves and to take effective peace keeping action.
Commenting on what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said, there is no doubt that we have the right, and we have asserted that right to see to it that the Canadians as well as other members of the United Nations force are able to take measures to protect themselves fully. Those measures will be taken in a manner calculated not to add to the difficulty involved in the assignment which has been given them.
I may say to the house quite frankly that on a number of occasions when I discussed matters involved in this question with the secretary general, both in New York and in Geneva, I told him about the interrogations that had been made in the house. He understood perfectly the concern of members of this house, a concern which he himself shares, to make sure that the opportunity of self defence is provided and that, to use the language of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the force is not hamstrung in the activities which it pursues. I communicated again last night with the secretary general to make sure there would be no misunderstanding. As a result he has issued an aide memoire which I believe has been circulated to all member states, certainly to those interested in this particular operation, in the following words:
The terms of reference of the peace keeping force in Cyprus are set forth in paragraph 5 of the resolution adopted by the security council on March 4, 1964. The secretary general has instructed

the commander of the force that the activities of the force which are exclusively under U.N. command are to be kept at all times within the framework of the security council terms of reference and no action not entirely consistent with them is ever to be undertaken.
In addition, the commander of the force does receive from the secretary general from time to time as a matter of course both general and detailed directions relating always to the terms of reference for his guidance in the discharge of his command. This being in accordance with usual practice in a military force has been the rule scrupulously followed with regard to all other U.N. peace keeping operations. Naturally those directives are entirely internal and cannot be made available for any public use.
In the interests of the successful discharge of the heavy responsibility which has been placed on the shoulders of the secretary general, I believe he had no alternative but to take the same position as was taken by his predecessors. It is the same rule which has obtained in respect of United Nations operations in Korea and in the Congo, and I am sure it will be applied in any future peace keeping operations.
The role of the United Nations in Cyprus is that of a policeman, just as it is in UNEF, just as it is in the Congo. Like any policeman, his function is public knowledge and the manner in which he discharges that function takes place in the full glare of publicity. His mere presence discourages lawbreaking, but where that in itself is not enough he may apply the minimum degree of force to discharge his responsibility. He is authorized, in addition, to defend himself as necessary.
All these things we take for granted as part of the police function in an ordered society; yet we do not insist on publication of the instructions that the policeman receives from his chief every day, nor would it be conducive to the fulfilment of his responsibilities if his every movement and intention were broadcast for the benefit of potential wrongdoers. These conditions are identical with those under which the peace keeping force in Cyprus must operate.
I recognize that I have a responsibility as Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is not an easy one but I accept it. My duty, within the limitations laid down by the United Nations, has been and will continue to be consistent with the assignment given to the United Nations peace keeping force. It is to see to it that the Canadian and other members of the United Nations peace keeping force are not prejudiced in any unjustified way.
Now, what I have said with regard to disclosure does not apply to the status of forces agreement. Yesterday I mentioned that there were consultations under way in New York between the foreign minister of Cyprus and the United Nations with regard to the status
Supply-External Affairs of forces agreement. I am happy to say that agreement was concluded late last night. While I am not in a position at the moment to table the status of forces agreement, I hope to be able to do so within a short period- just as soon as the full text has been made available.
With regard to the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam, the status of forces agreement establishes explicitly that the force and its members, together with its vehicles, vessels, aircraft and equipment, shall enjoy freedom of movement throughout Cyprus. The status of forces agreement is in the main, although I have not got it for tabling at the moment, somewhat similar to the status of forces agreement for the Congo. I may say that because of the Congo experience, it was possible for the secretary general and his colleagues to prepare an agreement more quickly in this particular instance than in the other to which I referred.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask him if the status of forces agreement provides not only the legal right of free movement in Cyprus, but does it also give the United Nations forces the right to remove impediments which may have been put there by groups other than the legal government of Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; as I indicated yesterday, it does. This is implicit in one of the clauses. I think it is section 11 of the agreement.
With regard to the question about multinational forces which was put to me by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I would remind him of the announcement of policy made in this house on June 7, 1963 when the Prime Minister said, as recorded at page 790 of Hansard:
-I can assure the house, although I do not need to, that Canada has no intention whatever of developing national nuclear forces or of manufacturing national nuclear weapons. While we will give this proposal consideration, as indeed we are bound and are anxious to give consideration to any proposal made to us by any of our NATO allies-and we do not exclude the United States from that group-I do not think that it will be likely that we would wish to add to our existing responsibilities and commitments by participating in this kind of multilateral nuclear force. But this is a matter which will be given the consideration it deserves.
This proposal is not a NATO proposal. It is a proposal in which, consistent with this declaration of policy, Canada is not now participating.
With regard to the question of disarming guerrillas, I noted what the hon. gentleman

Supply-External Affairs said. He will recall what I said in that context a tew days ago in this house. The position of the United Nations with regard to this question is part of the directives and general principles laid down by the secretary general and of the aide memoire to which I have already made reference.
In so far as the question concerning young NATO parliamentarians is concerned, I have not got the full answer but I hope, before we are through, that I may have it. Perhaps I could give it later.


Mr. Rapp:: It is not my intention to delay the passage of this item, but since I have been here all week and my Easter holidays are shot a few minutes more will not do any harm. The reason I would like to speak on this item is that last year I was a member of the Canadian delegation attending the NATO conference. I must say this was an educational experience and one which was very useful.
There are 15 nations that make up NATO. They include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. Strictly speaking, NATO is considered a military alliance, but to my surprise I find there were other aspects to this organization. When the delegates were assigned to the different committees I found that I had been assigned to the scientific and technical committee. This committee dealt mostly with matters pertaining to agriculture.
Amongst the subjects discussed were land reclamation and water pollution. I took advantage of the opportunity to speak about P.F.R.A. during the meetings of this committee to which I had been assigned, and referred to what had been done under it so far as our prairie regions were concerned. I also informed the committee that we had another plan, namely ARDA. There were two countries that were very much interested in this new program which was approved in 1961, and they were the United States and Turkey. These countries are faced with problems similar to the ones we have in Canada. It was therefore gratifying to find that these countries were very much interested in these programs. I suppose other Canadian delegates who were assigned to this committee, such as the hon. member for Lanark, had a similar experience.
Another matter in which I was greatly interested was the attempt to bring the tariffs of the NATO countries into line so these countries would enjoy better trading relationships. All in all, I must say that this was a very successful conference. While NATO may be considered a military alliance at the moment, nevertheless I think as time goes on more and more countries will realize that the


other aspects of this alliance are very important. But these are important too, so that the relationship among these NATO countries may be such as to bring about greater harmony in all phases of our life.


Mr. Winch:: I must admit that I did not realize until recently that the question of NATO was to be opened up and discussed the way it has been on a supplementary estimate. However since other members have opened up the entire subject of NATO and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made some comment on it I feel obliged, myself, to make some comments and ask for some information with regard to this organization, our responsibility towards it in Canada, and decisions which have been made on the authority of the minister.
My first question arises out of the promise made across Canada by the Prime Minister that, having fulfilled the commitment allegedly made by the previous government with regard to nuclear arms, the present government would consult with the NATO authorities and endeavour to negotiate itself out of any nuclear position. My question is therefore: What action has the government taken through the minister of external affairs to negotiate Canada out of a nuclear commitment within the NATO framework?
I should like to follow this up with another question-I presume the hon. gentleman is the only one who can answer it. It is my understanding that there has been a renegotiation of Canada's commitment to NATO with regard to four R.C.A.F. squadrons in France. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs be kind enough to give us a clear and lucid explanation of these negotiations which, I believe, were conducted a few months ago, based on the isolationist policy of de Gaulle who takes the position of God Almighty unto himself and declares he intends to develop his own nuclear force, irrespective of what the rest of the world or the NATO countries might think. We were told in the defence committee in Paris last fall that in exactly six years France proposes to have three atomic submarines all equipped with atomic missiles and that four years thereafter her entire military force, air force, army and navy, will be completely nuclear equipped. Having this attitude in mind, on what basis has the minister negotiated a change in policy concerning our four squadrons in France as a result of which two of these squadrons are to be moved from France to Germany but two are to remain in France because de Gaulle refuses, in accordance with his policy, to bring his own air force in Germany back to France because they could

not be nuclear equipped? He keeps his air force in Germany where it can be nuclear equipped by the United States.
On what basis are we now to keep two of our squadrons in France where they cannot be equipped in any way. I should also like to ask, under this new arrangement whereby two squadrons go to Germany from France and two are held in France, who is paying, Canada or NATO? Why, in the case of our two squadrons which remain in France, has there been a change to a reconnaissance and conventional role when these planes were constructed during the lifetime of the previous administration to perform a role which was solely a nuclear role? These changes have, I understand, been made in the last four months as a result of negotiations with NATO regarding our air force in France.
Since we are getting into a detailed discussion on NATO, let the minister give us an answer to at least these two questions. I ask him again, how far has progress been made with the commitment to renegotiate Canada's nuclear role in NATO and, second, on what basis do we maintain two air squadrons in France, non-equipped, when de Gaulle says France will keep hers in Germany, although we are maintaining ours in France itself to no purpose?


William Arnold Peters: I only want to ask several questions. One affects the problem raised by my hon. friend from Vancouver East in relation to our policy in NATO toward France. It would seem to me, and I am not an expert in external affairs, that there must be some change in the attitude taken with regard to France. The fact that Canada finally succumbed to United States influence with regard to the possession of atomic weapons must have had some effect on French opinion and I am curious to know what the attitude has been and what, if anything, can be done to improve the relationship between France and Canada.
In the second place, I am extremely interested in the situation which has developed in Cyprus. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has done exactly what he has always done, and as ministers of external affairs have done for a very long time. He has talked a lot of mumbo-jumbo which members of parliament do not understand, and which I am sure the country is not supposed to understand, either. The subject of external affairs has always been in a field apart. I am always surprised to find that in my party, as I suppose in other parties, everybody who wants to be somebody wants to be an expert in external affairs. I have no such ambitions but I believe the question of Cyprus is so important that the Canadian public should understand what is happening and be well aware
Supply-External Affairs of what is going on. The minister used a number of Latin words which I do not understand, and it is not surprising we do not know what our troops are going to do. I now ask the minister of external affairs to tell us, not as a minister in charge of a department but as acting prime minister, why the request which was made by a number of members to the government, that they be provided with free transportation to Cyprus during what was to have been the Easter holiday, was denied.
Most of us do not speak the language of the participants in the cold war on the island of Cyprus. Speaking neither the language of the Turks nor the language of the Greeks, we would probably only be able to converse with those connected with the old British regime and others who were able to speak our language. I and the other members interested in going to Cyprus were not wishing to go there as a delegation of the government. We were not going there as representatives of a NATO organization or in any other official capacity; we were only going in order to find out some of the answers which I am sure we are not going to learn in the House of Commons, although some of these answers must be available to every soldier in Cyprus today.
I think it would not have hurt one little bit, because the V.I.P. plane-and I have checked this-is going to Cyprus with space available for three or four members of parliament if they want to go. These members were not asking that their expenses be paid by the Canadian people; we were only asking for transportation to Cyprus. We are willing to go there without the usual amenities that are afforded visiting members of parliament. I think this government was scared to let us go because we would know the answers to some of the questions that have been asked in this house.
I am sure that if I spoke to some of the soldiers in Cyprus they would be able to tell me what they are supposed to do on that island. I would be very surprised if they could not tell me, because if this were the case they would be doing whatever they wanted to do and would not be under direct instruction. I am sure that no secrets would be revealed if I were able to talk to the troops. I would be very surprised if the members of the Canadian contingent, or those of the Irish and the other contingents were able to find out anything that is of a secret nature, because of our inability to converse in the languages of the island. I know the hon. member is going to say that most of them are French, and this is perfectly true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member tell us the names of the members who asked to go to Cyprus this week?

Supply-External Affairs


William Arnold Peters: Arnold Peters was one. I cannot speak for the others, but I know that others wanted to go in an unofficial capacity. I can only speak for myself, and I asked to go. The Congo seems very far removed from here, but Cyprus does not seem so far away. I personally would have liked to go there to see what the economic situation is-not so much in terms of the orders given to the troops because, while this is important, that is their business and I agree with the minister in this respect. He is probably well aware of these instructions, and we presume the instructions are fair and reasonable and will afford protection to our troops. If this is not the case, we will replace the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Certainly the leader of the official opposition, in view of his past experience in connection with such forces, would know something of the guarantees that would be given in the circumstances.
I confess that I did not know where the island of Cyprus was and I had to look it up on the map. I suppose when I went to public school and studied geography I knew where it was, but I have forgotten since then because I suppose I have not been particularly interested in it; I have never had reason to pay it too much attention. I believe that we in Canada will have to make a different type of contribution to Cyprus in the form of economic assistance and, probably, technological assistance, before these problems can be settled.
I am told that most nations which have been concerned with the island of Cyprus have found things on that island to be too expensive, and one of the problems is that the amount of money that can be raised through the economy of that country is not sufficient to keep the people on the island. If this is so, members of parliament would be in a much better position to devise methods of helping the island if they visited that country. So what, if some members of parliament occasionally went to the army barracks and had a meal? I do not think this would bankrupt the government.
I think this club connected with the Department of External Affairs should not exist. I am of the opinion that this club has been very exclusive up to now and will have to be less exclusive in order that some members who are interested in this particular field may obtain some information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member attacks the club too strongly, may I just tell him that I know of no objection or law which would prevent my hon. friend going to Cyprus.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not feel so strongly about it that I intend to pay for a commercial passage in order to go to Cyprus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: I do not want to do this for a vacation. Four or five days in Cyprus would, in my opinion, not necessarily be a vacation at this time. Many people would find that out. I do not want to go there for social reasons. I wish to go there in order to ascertain some of the conditions that exist on the island and methods in which we can assist these people. I would be doing this in my parliamentary role.
I know the minister has not refused permission. Permission hinges upon whether transportation is given through another department. But I do think that if we are going to look intelligently at the problem as it affects Cyprus we will have to think, not so much in terms of roadblocks, of guerrilla bands in a particular area of the island, but in terms of the economic situation of the island community and the type of aid Canada could give to assist in the development of the island and its economy. We should also be giving consideration to what can be done to enable the two groups on the island to get along in harmony. It is my understanding that the poverty on that island is very severe and this is one of the deciding factors behind the operation of the guerrilla forces in the community. I have only read this.
If I had the opportunity to go to Cyprus, and if-there are many "ifs" in this-we had been given an Easter recess, and if I had been able to learn anything on arriving there in view of the fact that there would be a language barrier, I think I could have made a much greater contribution. I suggest to the minister that he should not be so reluctant in this regard. I think only a limited number of members would be willing to sacrifice four or five days in order to go to the island. It seems to me that if we went in a non-official capacity-and certainly we would have to go in such a capacity, or we would be a delegation-and were able to consider the situation in Cyprus and also in some of the other areas in which Canadian forces are involved, our understanding of these questions might be much greater than it is at the present time.
Yesterday the minister mentioned Yemen. I think I would not be too wrong if I said that most members of parliament do not know where Yemen is and have no idea of the conditions or people in Yemen. I may be wrong and I may be doing a disservice to members of parliament. But we are supplying to Yemen a certain number of Canadian personnel to help solve the problems of that country. According to some of the reports that

have been given us by the minister, this is a rather dangerous mission and there may be other things that are necessary in Yemen. Far be it from me to run myself down. I have met people from Yemen at the United Nations. I have heard some of the discussions, and I think we are perhaps overstating the situation. However I do think an opportunity should be given for members of parliament to visit these areas, provided such visits do not interfere with other commitments.
I agree that it would be different if this were to be a delegation. I think the Minister of National Defence will have to make the decision as to whether facilities are available for such visits. This is the responsibility of the people concerned, but I think there should be no reluctance to make allowances for these purposes. One of my friends keeps travelling around this part of the world. He was in several South American countries, and several times during his visits there happened to be a revolution in progress. I suggest that this is purely accidental, because he immediately leaves and the revolution goes on anyway. Many hon. members know the former member to whom I am referring, and it does seem unfortunate.
However, I do not think this will happen again and that the situation will be hurt by members of parliament.
I am sure the minister of external affairs, with his wide experience of travel across the world, will be of the opinion that greater understanding of the problems of the people to whom he speaks, including those in Cyprus, is essential, and this is made possible by his ability to visit these areas. I suggest the government reconsider the request which has been made by a number of members of parliament who would like to spend a few days in areas where Canadians are contributing to world peace. I think they should be allowed to make such a trip, not only with the encouragement of the government but also with the blessing of the minister of external affairs.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a good idea to send the hon. member for Timiskaming to Cyprus so he can see exactly what is happening. Because when he speaks in this house we sometimes sleep.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words if only to prove to my hon. colleagues that I am here this afternoon.
Looking at the supplementary estimates concerning the aid to other countries, we realize the insignificance of amounts, which moreover were obtained after numerous representations. On the other hand, if we consider that within a few hours, it was decided to send Canadian troops to Cyprus, at a cost
Supply-External Affairs of about $2.6 million-to send them only, not to bring them back-we can wonder what sort of peace-making role our country is supposed to play. Canada is considered a middle-sized country, whose role should not be solely to preserve peace but to be an example to the world. We notice however that we are ready to spend $2.6 million for military purposes.
On the other hand, if we consider the amounts that are earmarked for foreign aid, we find that they represent about $2,250,000. This means that our country would rather encourage those who sell military equipment than those who sell food products which could be given to underdeveloped countries, or rather emerging countries. We have often heard that our country is doing the best it can, considering its population; but that it is not good enough, and our country should do much more to help those countries which are being developed and to fight hunger and poverty in the world.
I think there would be a way of making things easier since a country is rich only if its citizens are rich, a country cannot be considered a wealthy one if all its citizens do not enjoy a certain degree of economic comfort. I think, therefore, that the government could also help Canadian citizens live a better and easier life; this would permit Canada to help those countries which are being developed and to fight hunger and poverty in the world.
If the democratic countries cannot solve that problem, countries with another ideology will, and then we will try to fight them on another front.
Mr. Chairman, we should consider, not necessarily under these supplementary estimates but in years to come, granting more specific assistance to foreign countries and allocating a larger share of the external affairs' estimates to this item.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I have two observations for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).
In the first place, in regard to our troops now in Cyprus, I hope they will not take root there as our Canadian military representatives did in the Gaza strip where they have been since 1956. So, I hope that our troops now in Cyprus will not remain there as long as was the case in the Congo and everywhere else.
Second, as far as the assistance given to underdeveloped countries in particular is concerned, I stated in this house the importance of helping missions. I submitted at that time that missions of any denomination that are already set up in Africa, in Asia or anywhere else can more easily and more efficiently than anybody else help the people and consequently, they need assistance. I wonder

Supply-External Affairs whether the Canadian government could not help those underdeveloped nations through our missions and through the representatives we have in those countries.
I make that observation in good faith and I hope that the minister will find an opportunity to tell me whether it is possible and whether there could be some way to assist officially the missionaries who dedicate themselves in the various missions throughout the world.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman. I merely want to say that when we were in power, the then prime minister had voted an amount of $300,000 for scholarships to French speaking countries and for student exchanges. I am asking the minister whether this government intends to increase that contribution.
We are assisting many countries through the Colombo plan, which is excellent, but I am wondering whether it would not be desirable to contribute also, in some other ways, to the development of French speaking African countries in the economic field as well as in other fields.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly. The hon. member shall see, when we discuss the main estimates for 1964-65, that we have proposals to make to assist those French speaking African countries.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, before the item carries, whether the minister has anything to say on the proposal advanced by my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming. I have had the opportunity in the past of taking some of these trips and I have visited countries to see first hand some of the conditions which exist there. I think this has enabled me to form a better idea of the circumstances and is of assistance when matters of this kind come up for discussion in this house. In addition, I think it is of very great benefit to the morale of our soldiers to receive a visit from their members of parliament. If I may add to the proposition of the hon. member, the government will not be put to additional expense. We are not asking for a special flight for this purpose; merely that we be granted the advantage of occupying any empty seats on V.I.P. aircraft engaging in such missions.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


William Arnold Peters: I should like a reply, Mr. Chairman, because there is no point in my writing another four or five letters. Perhaps the minister will reply, not as external affairs minister but as acting prime minister. I think

he would have the capacity to say whether this can be agreed to in the future or not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say to
my hon. friend is that this would involve powers which even the Prime Minister does not possess. Naturally this would have to be a matter for consideration by the department concerned. However, I have noted what my hon. friend has said and I agree that, given the proper moment, visits of this kind are useful. I can do no more at present than note with great interest the observations made by my two amiable and distinguished friends from northern Ontario about their desire to travel. I hope it will not be misunderstood when I say it would have been very fortunate for both themselves and others if it had been possible for them to do that during the past week.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to reply to my basic two questions regarding the fulfilment of the government's promise to try and negotiate us out of the nuclear role in NATO, and what was the basis of the negotiations that led to the closing of certain NATO bases in France?


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the last two questions I really think these would be more appropriate at another time.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister should be in a position to answer the question about the NATO parliamentary group. The tentative itinerary provided for the visit to take place in Canada between May 13 and May 16, for lectures on Canadian history, political and economic, with a briefing on Canada's position in external affairs, a government luncheon, luncheon with the Canadian NATO parliamentarians association, and a visit to Montreal. Arrangements were made for some 25 parliamentarians to come here but suddenly, on March 30, the minister's office, in a letter written by Mr. J. D. Edmonds advised:
-I am writing to tell you that after a great deal of consideration and after seeking advice from a number of quarters, and because of the great pressures and demands upon my time, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it will be impossible for me to assist you in the implementation of the visit to Canada of the European young NATO political leaders.
It is very important that these young people have an opportunity to visit our country, particularly after arrangements were made. To cancel those arrangements suddenly will certainly not bring any encomiums to Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry I did not answer that question and I thank my right hon. friend for reminding me of it. So far as I know there is no basis for thinking that any

official invitation had been extended to these young people, and consequently there was no cancellation of an official invitation. The hon. member for York Centre had written to me about this matter on March 12, and I indicated to him subsequently that this was a commendable project, to have the young NATO political leaders anxious to visit Canada and learn more about it.
I fully agree with what my right hon. friend has said about the desirability of exchanges of this sort, but we had made no provision for funds for this project. However, I have listened to what the right hon. gentleman had to say, and I understand the hon. member for York Centre sent me a further letter yesterday which I have not yet had an opportunity to see.
The person who made the request was a Mrs. Nancy Powis, who came to see my assistant several weeks ago about the possibility of such a visit, as did the hon. member for York Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: And the hon. member for Bruce.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend says the hon. member for Bruce, and I suppose he saw one of my staff. There are no funds available for this purpose, but I shall look into the matter in view of the representations which have been made again today.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
lOe. Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings, $225,000.
William Arnold Peters: Will the minister explain where these buildings are being erected and the acquisition of land is taking place? Even with the limited experience I have, I have always been surprised that Canada does not seem to have enough money to operate its external affairs offices in a proper manner. I know of one area where we have an establishment of embassy size and where a much lesser establishment could do a better job. We could present a much better picture of Canada if we did not over-extend ourselves; in other words, we should not push our status unless we are able to maintain it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is in Helsinki and Islamabad in Pakistan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15e. Canada's civilian participation as a member of the international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China, $6,000.
John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister bring the committee up to date in regard to conditions generally in southeast Asia, particularly in those areas that are danger spots?
Supply-External Affairs What is his view as to the degree of danger that exists in South Viet Nam? Does he not agree that what is taking place there is one of the gravest challenges to the western world and to freedom itself? What, in his opinion, is the degree of success being attained by the western forces in that area to prevent the spread of communism? I do not want him to go into great detail, but if he could give an outline it would be helpful.


Murdo William Martin: The situation in Indo-China generally causes justifiable concern. The conflict between the two regimes in North and South Viet Nam presents the world with a difficult and dangerous problem. As the right hon. gentleman is well aware, Canada has an interest in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, as a member of the international supervisory commissions in those three countries.
The situation in Laos, since the reactivation of the commission, has been strained by continuing difficulties, largely arising out of the failure of certain members of the commission to recognize the validity of the Canadian claim that majority decisions of that commission are needed, in the present situation, rather than an insistence on the rule of unanimity. The commission there continues to serve, under difficult circumstances, as best it can.
While the commission in Cambodia has not been very active it continues to serve important purposes. It may be put to more active use, depending on the outcome of certain discussions that are now taking place with the members of the Geneva accord group. This involves recent proposals from the government of Cambodia through Prince Sihanouk. It may be that in the course of the next few days or the next few weeks, there will be some indication of a decision to meet the current situation there.
The situation in Viet Nam is a serious one. Warfare continues and generally speaking the west is deeply involved by implication in this situation. The international supervisory commission has continued to function since the change of government in Viet Nam and we, as a member of that commission, are following the serious events there with the concern about which my hon. friend spoke. I do not think that I can add anything more, except to concur in what my right hon. friend said about the serious developments there.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the situation deteriorating in South Viet Nam to a degree that is threatening and challenging?

Supply-External Affairs


Murdo William Martin: I would not say that it is deteriorating, but there is no cause for believing that the situation has substantially improved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
99e. Contribution to the Canadian Red Cross in aid of disaster victims in East Pakistan, $10,000.
Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first of five items under the external aid office. The various items call for contributions with respect to disasters or need in East Pakistan, Barbados, Yugoslavia, Brazil and the Caribbean islands. They add up to $50,500. In terms of the way we vote money here the total is really quite small and I am sure there will be no question but that the house will vote these items readily.
Since these items will be charged to the fiscal year 1963-64, I wonder whether the minister can now give us a figure representing the total of Canada's contributions under the heading of external aid for that fiscal year? Could he also tell us what the intended total is for the fiscal year 1964-65?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The total-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I can get the minister's attention, in the first place I should like a specific total of what we spent under the heading of external aid for the fiscal year 1963-64, to which these items are being charged, and I should also like an estimate for the coming fiscal year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is asking for the bilateral grants. For 1963-64 the total was $50,400,000 odd. For 1964-65 it is estimated that the total will be around $75,600,000. Of course, this does not take into account in 1964-65 the program I have announced; the loan program and the increases in bilateral aid will bring our program up to somewhere between $170 million and $180 million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
103e. Emergency relief in the form of canned hams and powdered skim milk to the government of Brazil, $5,000.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this particular item has to do with aid and assistance to the government of Brazil. There has been a change in the government there brought about by a revolutionary military coup. What is the general attitude of the Department of External Affairs toward the recognition of governments that follow a coup such as has taken place in Brazil? Has there been any determination yet as to the recognition of a new government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I cannot of course comment on the situation in
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
Brazil. It is too recent. With regard to the policy generally pursued by the government and, indeed, by Canada over the years concerning recognition, may I say first of all that recognition of the state is one thing and recognition of the government is another. With regard to the recognition of a government we would want to bear in mind the durability of tenure of the government itself. If this were apparent, all other things being considered equal we would extend de facto recognition. The question of de jure recognition would follow.
Recently we recognized a country with which we do not have any ideological community of interests. It had been admitted into the United Nations and as we were members of that body-I refer, of course, to Mongolia-we accorded that country recognition, although we do not presently intend to establish a mission there. Our procedure in this instance followed exactly the procedure two years ago by the former administration in the recognition of Albania. Conditions there were similar to the situation that attended our recognition of Mongolia.
In the case of commonwealth countries the question of recognition does not usually arise. My right hon. friend will remember interrogating me one day with regard to the government of Zanzibar. In that instance we did withhold recognition because we wished to examine developments there, in consultation with other members of the commonwealth.
With regard to recognition generally, the situation would be much as I have stated. There are, of course, some countries with which we do not exchange diplomatic missions; this is one way of effecting recognition. The mere acknowledgement of the existence officially of a country is another way of extending recognition. In some countries the ideological complexion has had something to do with the policy of recognition, although we feel generally that the isolation of countries in this interdependent period in the history of the world is undesirable.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any discussion as yet between the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States as to the recognition of the new government of Brazil?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
115e. Assessment for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1964, which is $977,500.
William Arnold Peters: This is a million dollar item and relates to the assessment for membership in international organizations, including the commonwealth. I have wondered what the addition was in this case which warranted the extra million dollars?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The total vote is about $977,000. I believe $4,500 will be to reimburse the Department of Finance vote for unforeseen expenditures from which funds were provided to meet the additional assessment for Canada in the commonwealth educational liaison unit. The house will note with interest, I am sure, that in the month of August this year the commonwealth educational conference will take place. This will be the third meeting since the one held in London, the last meeting being in New Delhi. This conference will bring together educators from all parts of the world. It will be a conference of very great importance, one that will be welcomed to Canada and one that will have very important commonwealth significance.
The $973,000 will go for our membership in the organization for economic co-operation and development about which we spoke yesterday. An amount of $646,648 was provided in the main estimates for 1963-64, to cover our assessment in the O.E.C.D. for the calendar year 1963. The O.E.C.D. budget for 1964 is forecast at 90 million francs, up 19 million francs from 1963. The construction of a new headquarters building accounts for some of this substantial increase in the budget of the organization.


William Arnold Peters: Can the minister tell us what major project is now being undertaken in O.E.C.D.?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend did not hear the excellent speeches made yesterday by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I recommend strongly that he read their observations. This organization, as my hon. friend knows, is an organization that was set up to promote the economic interests of its member states. The member states are made up of the NATO countries and other non-NATO European countries, plus one country in Asia, Japan. The organization is directed by a distinguished former Danish economist and minister of finance, Mr. Kristensen.
In addition to furthering the economic interests of this group of countries, it seeks to encourage increases in the external aid programs of member countries, and contributes through such programs to the improvement
Supply-External Affairs of the standard of living in the underdeveloped nations of the world. This is an organization which I believe is doing important work.


William Arnold Peters: I agree entirely with the minister. I was wondering just where O.E.C.D. was doing this work. I am wondering if Canada should be giving leadership to have O.E.C.D. do something for the development of Cyprus at the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will recall the reply I gave to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam several weeks ago when I mentioned that Canada had put forward a plan for consideration with regard to the very situation to which the hon. member directs our attention. This is a matter that is receiving the attention as well of O.E.C.D.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
14 6e. To reimburse the agricultural products board for the export value of skim milk powder donated to international relief agencies, $490,400.
William Arnold Peters: Yesterday, during consideration of the estimates for the Department of Agriculture, we discussed this $490,000 which is to reimburse the agricultural products board for the export of skim milk powder donated to international relief agencies. I am wondering why this full amount was paid to the agricultural products board. Why did the government not economize on this interdepartmental transaction? In other words, we paid the full price for this skim milk powder while other agricultural products were written off. As I remember it, there was a large sum written off in the revaluation of inventories. Would it not have been possible to obtain this product at less than the book value, because the purpose to which it was put was for relief and it came from our non-disposable surplus? Would it not have been possible to transfer this to external affairs for foreign aid?


Paul Joseph James Martin: These products are bought at concessional prices.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
149e. Assessment towards financing the Laos international commission, $84,100.
John George Diefenbaker: What has been the total cost to Canada as a member of the Laos international commission? The amount of the assessment here seems very high, considering the fact that the commission is composed of such a few persons. I wonder how it is made up?


Murdo William Martin: I have not got a breakdown for the other countries. The total for one year is, I think, $360,000 for the three commissions in Indo-China. I do not

Disposition of Grade Grain have a breakdown of the total amount required for each of these three commissions.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the total personnel?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It varies. In Laos, I think it is 26; in Cambodia, which is very-small, around four or five, and in Viet Nam it is around 45 to 50.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: That concludes consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the committee. I wonder if it would be agreeable if we were to sit right through the hour from five to six-in view of what I said about Cyprus and that trip?


An hon. Member:: I agree.


Frank Howard: If the Secretary of State for External Affairs is desirous of going to Cyprus we should not detain him. I think we should call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motion for the production of papers.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 19, consideration of the following motion of Mr. Bell:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, memoranda or directives made by the minister and/or the Department of National Defence regarding the rounding up of arms and/or ammunition.
Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to ask the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw this motion. I may say I intended to withdraw it anyway, but I had thought to exercise my right of reply. However, in an effort to be co-operative I am willing to forget that this afternoon, and ask that the motion be withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to withdraw this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



PROVISION FOR DISPOSITION OF GRADE EXCESS AND OVERAGE

Reynold Rapp: the second reading of Bill


No. C-17, to provide for the restitution and distribution of the proceeds of grade excess and overage unlawfully confiscated and converted in 1955 and continuously thereafter under an act intituled an act to amend the Canada Grain Act to the use and purposes of the governor in council.


Mr. Speaker:: I have two statements to make in connection with this bill. First, I have a few not too brief remarks on a matter of interest which was raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) as to the procedure which the Chair has followed in the past and is following at the present time with regard to assisting members, or whether or not members should receive notice that their bills are in order or not. I think it would be useful, generally speaking, if I made a statement with regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and then dealt with the bill which the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) wishes to bring forward this afternoon.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi rose toward the end of February to direct a question to the Chair. The question is found in the following words on page 281 of Hansard of February 27:
Last session and the session before, a number of these bills were determined to be out of order at the time of second reading. I remember at one point speaking to the Chair about this, and the house leader for the government during the last session said he felt some method should be devised whereby private members could be informed before second reading if there were anything substantially wrong with their bills. I should like to ask the Chair whether any method has been worked out whereby private members might be given this information before second reading, and I do so in view of this caveat that has been entered to all these bills.
To summarize, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi suggests that a member having a public bill before the house should be notified in advance, that is, before second reading, if the said bill is to be declared out of order. This cannot be done for different reasons. First, so many public bills have been introduced by private members that the study thereof may be completed, in some cases, only on the eve of their being called for second reading. Second, if the Speaker has any doubt as to a bill being in order it is possible, as often happens, that he might call on the members to assist him in coming to a decision. How could he do so if he had already advised the mover that his bill will not be accepted? To quote from Beauchesne, citation 71(6), page 61 of the fourth edition:
In all matters of doubt, the Speaker will consider attentively the opinions of members of experience, or sometimes, instead of expressing his opinion on either side, may ask instructions from

the house or reserve his decision on the point in discussion, or suggest that the house may, if it thinks proper, dispense with the rule in a particular case. In doubtful cases, he will be largely guided by circumstances.
In the third place, the Speaker has no assurance that all bills will be proceded with. Why, then, should he rule on bills which may never be called? The time to give a ruling is when a question is raised in the house. It certainly is not one of the duties of the Speaker to rule in advance on hypothetical questions or on points of law before they arise.
Citation 70(6) at page 60 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, is to the effect that-
The Speaker decides questions of order only when they actually arise and not in anticipation.
Now, citation 364 at page 270 states:
Leave to introduce a bill is not always granted as a matter of course. The house is free to refuse it-
In the citations which follow many examples are given where the Speaker rules out the motion for first reading as being out of order on the grounds that it involved a charge upon the revenue, or for other reasons. Evidently in those cases no previous notice could be given to the hon. members sponsoring such measures.
In the circumstances now prevailing, the members have the advantage that all their bills are introduced, receive first reading and are circulated. They have been given notice by way of a caveat that these bills will be studied and, if necessary to declare any out of order, that this will be done only after serious consideration. This procedure has been agreed to by the house itself.
May I remind all hon. members of a certain standing order which is to be found in our standing orders, and suggest that if any of them wish assistance in the drafting of public bills, or as to their legality, they should consult with the parliamentary counsel. It is up to the members to inform themselves as to the rules of the house and their application in the past. The guiding principle is declared in section 54 of the British North America Act and in our standing order 61. In other words, bills involving an expenditure of public money or taxation, and all measures involving a charge upon the people, must be preceded by a resolution. It should be noted also that a resolution is required not only when an amendment seeks to increase the amount previously approved by parliament, but also if it changes the modality and conditions of the grant authorized by the original legislation.
Therefore, before introducing their bills in the house, hon. members should take the trouble of reading the decisions of speakers
Disposition of Grade Grain in the past as found in Beauchesne's third edition, these decisions being summarized as comments following the related standing orders in the fourth edition.
The Speaker is the servant of the house and is responsible for the enforcement of its rules. As stated by Beauchesne:
He declines to submit motions to the house which obviously infringe the rules which govern its proceedings.
In other words, the Speaker does not make the rules but he is bound by them and by the decisions of former Speakers as they have been interpreted in the past.
So much by way of reply to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. I hope that statement will be of use to hon. members generally. I come, now, to the bill which is presently before the house, Bill No. C-17.
For different reasons, which I will try to summarize as briefly as possible, I must regretfully rule the motion for second reading of this bill to be out of order.
The argument made by the hon. member to justify the passage of this measure is found at great length in the preamble thereto, to which I will refer later on, and in the explanatory notes.
The preamble, for instance, states in its conclusion that "His Excellency the Governor General did not recommend the appropriation of grade excess and overage of the proceeds thereof to the use and purposes of the governor in council, as required under section 54 of the British North America Act" and also that "the amendments purporting to be so enacted are and ever have been unlawful of purpose and null and void in effect". In an attempt to further clarify the situation, it is stated in the explanatory notes to the bill that "Without the Governor General's recommendation, the 1955 provisions were and are unlawful."
Then the bill goes on to say that the full amount of the loss shall be paid out of the public officers guarantee fund or, if not, then recovered from the officials responsible and be disposed of for the construction of a public terminal elevator at the town of Tisdale and for other purposes. I am unable to see how such a plan could be worked out, nor am I ready to admit to the insufficiency of the resolution which preceded the introduction of "An act to amend the Canada Grain Act" in 1955. If there was a defect in the procedure there is no doubt that the point should have been raised and decided at that time. This has always been the position adopted by my predecessors and has been accepted by the courts.
For instance, as far back as 1926, in the exchequer court in the case of the King, plaintiff, and Irwin, defendant, where the

Disposition of Grade Grain defence had claimed that the Naturalization Act "was in the nature of a money bill and was not properly introduced into the house and was void" it was held, "that when a statute appears on its face to have been duly passed by a competent legislature, the courts must assume that all things have been rightly done in respect of its passage, and cannot entertain any argument that there is a defect of parliamentary procedure lying behind the act."
The argument for the validity of this act rests on premises which I unfortunately am unable to accept. To quote the words of Lord Halsbury in a decision respecting the commissioners for income tax, we must "proceed upon the assumption that the legislature is an ideal person that does not make mistakes."
And now Willis J. in Lee v. Bude and Tor-rington Junction Railway Co. (1871) L.R.6, C.P.576 at p. 582, used words which I would like to adopt. He said, "If an act of parliament has been obtained improperly, it is for the legislature to correct it; but so long as it exists as law, the courts are bound to obey it.. . Having neglected to take the proper steps at the proper time to prevent the act from passing into a law, it is too late now to raise any objections to it."
I therefore consider myself bound by the opinions and decisions I have referred to or cited, and cannot entertain any argument that there is a defect of parliamentary procedure lying behind an act as a matter of fact. It is, as has been said, a case where the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta applies with great force and rigour.
As the trust moneys mentioned in the bill and proposed to be recovered as suggested in clause 2 thereof for the general advantage of the beneficiaries cannot, by virtue of what I have already said, be so recovered, it seems Useless to repeat the reasons I gave last session in ruling out of order another bill of the hon. member respecting the Tisdale grain terminal on June 13, 1963, and which is to be found at pages 987 and 988 of Hansard of that date, or the ruling by Mr. Deputy Speaker on December 10 when he ruled out a government bill which had been introduced without a resolution. This was quite a lengthy decision so I will quote only a couple of lines. He said, "The new act will change the conditions attached to the spending of these moneys by the original act and, to this extent, the bill now before the house would appear to be a money bill."
Before closing my remarks I would refer to the drafting of this bill; more particularly to the long preamble of two pages and a

half, which is more in the nature of an argument, an explanatory note and a discussion, than in the proper and usual form of such part of a bill.
Standing order 72 provides expressly that, "No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape." In the caveat I gave on Thursday, February 20 on the introduction of 68 public bills by private members, I stated that each of these bills would be scrutinized and that if any defects were found therein so far as the practices and usages of the house are concerned, it would be brought to hon. members' atttention. This I am doing now. As stated by the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada in 1942, "Preambles should be avoided. An act should explain itself and if reference to a preamble is necessary in construing any provisions of an act, it would indicate that the draft requires revision."
Sir Allison Russell, K.C., expresses the same opinion in his book on legislative drafting when he further states, "It is only in exceptional cases, usually those where constitutional changes are being enacted, that a preamble is now used to explain the object of an act. A preamble cannot restrict or extend the enacting part, when the language and scope of the act are not open to doubt."
However, it is not mainly on account of the preamble that I have to declare this bill out of order, but for the reasons given previously.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am not in a position to argue against your decision. However, it is beyond my understanding why one legal official would say that this bill is not out of order while another legal official says that it is out of order. In my opinion the reasons for the bill which are given in the explanatory notes are fully explicit. The farmer has the right to use these overages to his advantage. If the overages are under the direction of the governor in council and the governor in council can say for what purposes they are to be used, I cannot understand why the bill should be out of order.
I am not going to object to Your Honour's ruling and I fully accept your decision, but at the same time there must be some other method adopted in this house which will resolve this type of difficulty, where a member receives legal advice from one official that does not coincide with the opinion of another legal official.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he submitted his bill to the parliamentary counsel, because the parliamentary counsel shares my opinion with regard to this bill, namely that it is out of order. Did the

hon. member take the matter up with parliamentary counsel, as is his right, of course?


Reynold Rapp: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted, since Your Honour referred to me in the opinion, to say just a word by way of explanation. I realize at once that I am not strictly in order, any more than the hon. member was when he commented on what Your Honour had to say. However, the hon. member did telephone me this morning about his bill, and I confess I had not looked at the bill at all. The hon. member gave me a general idea about it, and I am afraid it was completely out of my mind at the time that this question of order had arisen in a previous case. I did undertake to say something about the bill if the hon. member spoke. I would just like him and the house to know that I was acting in perfect good faith, and I was not in any way seeking to mislead the hon. member.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of this motion I should like to say just a word or two on the bill. It has been my experience in the house that private members' bills are not treated strictly on legal grounds. I can understand the argument applied in regard to statutes, namely that matters interfering with the rights of individuals and placing restrictions upon them should be very, very strictly ruled upon. But surely a private member's bill is the only way we have in Canada of bringing forward what we think are inequities in the law and giving them some airing before the highest court in the land. We do not look upon this as an appeal to a court of appeal, but to public opinion. The number of private bills which get through are very few; they are nearly always talked out, sometimes with the help of the officials of the house. I do not think that this bill would even get to a vote if it were debated at length; but apparently there has been widespread dissatisfaction with the way private property has been expropriated, and this is our only opportunity to give the matter a proper airing. Perhaps this short discussion we are now having may have that effect. But 1 do not think we should be too restrictive in private members' bills because this hour provides the only opportunity to discuss such matters.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members realize that it gives the Chair no satisfaction to rule bills out of order, but it is my duty to find whether there are any faults in a bill, and if so to say so to the house. May I remind all hon. members that they are entitled to aid and assistance, and if they will consult with
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act parliamentary counsel they will get that aid and assistance. Otherwise if hon. members want to take the risk before presenting their bills without first discovering whether the bills conform with the rules and regulations, then that is up to them. But they need not take that risk; all they need do is present their suggestions and ask for aid and assistance of parliamentary counsel, who is there to assist members. It is my particular job as Speaker to try and make sure that any bill which is presented to the house is in proper form, and it is my duty so to declare out of order a bill which is not.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, just going back to the point that it is difficult to warn members before second reading, it appears to me that the length of argument put forth by Your Honour against this bill is an indication that considerable time was spent developing the argument to rule this bill out of order. Therefore there would have been ample time to let the hon. member know that the bill was not in order.



COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-27, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (12-mile fishing zone).
He said: Mr. Speaker, when this measure was before us last year I said we were well aware of the fact that the government had announced its intention to negotiate a 12-mile fishing limit for Canada, but I added that while we were aware of that fact we were quite unaware of the details of the type of 12-mile fishing limit the government had in mind. I think I should reiterate those words today. I am glad, for the reasons stated last year, that I left my bill on the order paper as it might serve as a contrast to or as a comparison with what we understand the government is intending in the form of a 12-mile fishing limit.
This bill calls for-
-a declaration by the Queen in parliament that Canada within those 12 marine miles seaward of her coasts has, to the sole use and benefit of her nationals, the right to fish exclusive of all others: as well an affirmation of Canada's obligation to protect and conserve the live resources of those seas to that same end.
This bill would repeal paragraph (b) of section 2 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and would substitute the following:
(b) 'Canadian territorial waters' means a fishing zone extending seaward to a limit 12 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial seas of Canada are measured headland to headland and includes inland waters of Canada.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
To show something of the feelings, I might almost say of dismay, which are held in a wide section of the British Columbia fishing industry at the reports of the government's intentions with regard to its 12-mile fishing limit plans, I should like to quote briefly from a publication of the Pacific trollers' association entitled "The Pacific Troller". I am quoting the January-February edition 1964, and I think it reflects the feeling of many fishermen of British Columbia, as well as in other parts of Canada.
When the Minister of Fisheries... announced the government's intentions to declare a 12-mile territorial limit in May of 1964, the entire fishing industry was elated with the good news...
Having taken such a courageous stand when the need was evident, why has the government now softened the tenor of its original announcement?
According to this publication-
The members of the Pacific trollers' association are greatly alarmed at the government's attitude, which points to granting historic fishing rights within the proposed 12-mile limit to such countries as have exploited our shoreline fisheries in the past.
That is specifically the United States. The Pacific trollers' association urge:
That no permanent recognition be given to historic rights prior to a trial period, of some years, in which to assess the effectiveness and further complications of an extended fishing limit; it being our opinion, that there are many trials ahead for those countries who have and those who will seek to extend the areas of protection for their fishermen-
We implore our government to consider this one opportunity to better the position of its own fishermen. The entire Canadian fishing industry has fought long and hard for extended fishing limits. Those who might claim historic rights offer nothing in return. The fishermen of our day feel no obligation to historic rights. In their minds the only rights deserving recognition are those in which there is an equitable exchange.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that what we hear of the government's plans and negotiations to establish a 12-mile fishing limit for Canada underlies the fears expressed in the quotation to which I have just referred. I think the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) would do well to call together the standing committee on marine and fisheries, at which time we could discuss freely and frankly all of the important problems and aspects involved in what is about to be done. In my opinion, Canada like so many other countries-I think some 50- should take the perfectly reasonable step of staking out her 12-mile limit and offering time to others to negotiate with Canada to the end that international agreement to a limit is reached. The bill I introduced last year, and which I have left in the form it was, would do this. On behalf of Canada it would establish a 12-mile fishing limit, and I

urge hon. members to support it, at least to the extent of directing it to the attention of the fisheries committee.


Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say I am entirely in favour of the principle of the bill and have no doubt that it is one of the most important bills to come before the house since the session began. Coming from Newfoundland, which is primarily a fishing industry province, I can state that unless this bill, or one like it is passed, as promised by the Prime Minister, there will shortly be no Newfoundland fishery at all.
During the last few days the newspapers have been full of articles about seal hunters, and there has been a lot of talk about the terrible atrocities perpetrated on innocent seals. But the problem is far more serious than that. It is so important that the livelihood of all fishermen in Newfoundland is at stake.
I see many defects in the bill as it stands, but I am completely in favour of the principle contained in it, providing for the establishment of a 12-mile fishing limit. I hope it will receive the due consideration not only of the members who represent fishing and coastal districts but also of members who represent the interior of the country. Even though Newfoundland is at one extreme end of our country and while we are not one of the "have" provinces at the moment, if some of the developments in Labrador come to fruition-and I feel they will under the guidance of Mr. Smallwood-then the province will become one of the richest in Canada. Meanwhile the principle contained in this bill is one which we support wholeheartedly.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) on presenting his bill at this time, even though one wonders whether it is a propitious time to do so, since the Prime Minister has committed himself to the principle of a 12-mile territorial waters limit for Canada. But if we debate the bill in a responsible way, we can bring out points that will be useful to the different parties in the negotiations presently under way and which are designed to work out a mutually suitable arrangement.
The sponsor of the bill made some reference to historic rights. I did not get a chance to write down what he said, but I gathered he was quoting from a pamphlet put out by the trollers' association of B.C., in which they express some fear that the government would go back on its announced intention with respect to a 12-mile limit. I have been advocating this 12-mile limit for a great many years. I have done so because the

livelihood of 90 per cent of my constituents depends upon its being established, and I can assure the hon. member that my constituents are just as vitally interested in this matter as are the trailers of B.C.
However we must take a responsible attitude and realize there are such things as historic rights and treaties between Canada and other countries which cannot be treated as scraps of paper or brushed aside. Fishing has been the main industry in my province for over 400 years. It was carried on by the fishermen of European nations long before Newfoundland came under British rule and long before it was peopled with permanent settlers. Those nations acquired historic rights, and if we want to create a responsible image of Canada we must recognize these facts.
There is, however, another consideration, and a paramount one, the right of people to make a living. No civilized nation in the world could insist on retaining historic rights which result in depriving the people of a country of their means of livelihood. That is why I said at the outset that this bill was important to my province, and in particular to my constituency.
Each year, at about this time of year, the fish come in from the ocean and are very plentiful in a narrow strip of water along the west part of my riding, and it often happens that at this time of year the ice comes out of the gulf and encloses a sheet of water along the coast. In many places the ice comes in right to the land and at other places it stretches two or three miles off shore. Yet in that narrow strip of water, which is perhaps 80 miles long, not more than 12 miles wide at the widest point and diminishes in width almost to zero, 50 to 60 draggers belong to other countries fish. There are Spanish draggers, Portuguese draggers, French draggers, draggers from almost every European country one could mention. This is the time of the year when the fishery in this section of my riding is at its peak. My constituents are depending upon the fishery for their livelihood because either they get the fish now while they are there, or they do not get them at all. Their whole livelihood is at stake.
Yet with such a concentration of foreign draggers in this small stretch of water my constituents dare not go out to try to earn their livelihood. They cannot risk putting out their gear because these foreign draggers would destroy it. The gear costs thousands of dollars and many of my constituents have had their gear destroyed by the operations of these draggers. In this 12-mile wide stretch of water operations by foreign draggers can be
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act carried on with perfect legality and yet they result in taking away the livelihood of 7,000 or 8,000 people.


Barry Mather: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. It is in line with his description of the conditions affecting his constituents inside this 12-mile zone. Would he not agree that in setting up a 12-mile limit for Canadian fishermen it would be well to allow for negotiations and a phasing out period whereby we would finally be rid of some of the evils he has outlined with regard to these so-called historic rights of other countries?


Mr. Carfer:: Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. These historic rights have very serious results but you just cannot brush them aside. If we are going to work out a satisfactory solution to the problem I think we must proceed on the basis of recognizing that they exist and recognizing the harm that is being done by adhering to them. I am sure that any reasonable, civilized country would want to come to a solution that would prevent these harmful effects, but I think we would defeat our own ends if we simply proceeded on the basis that there were no such historic rights.
Another feature of the bill is strict adherence to a 12-mile limit. There are places where this is impossible and for it to apply strictly it can only apply in places where there are 24 miles of water between Canada and a foreign country. There are places in my riding where there are not 24 miles, not even 15 miles. South of my constituency lie the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which are fishing settlements. Like the Newfoundlanders, these people depend on the sea for their livelihood. At the nearest point between St. Pierre and Miquelon and the Burin peninsula, which is part of my riding, there is a distance of only nine miles while the average distance separating them would be about 14 miles. I do not think it would be reasonable for Canada to say that 12 of those 14 miles would be Canadian waters. I think we have to be reasonable in situations like this and work out a mutually satisfactory solution, because we want justice. We want the harmful effects prevented and we want to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Chesley William Carter: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: I take it his reference to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon was for the purpose of saying that he anticipates that the French will not have the historic fishing rights to which he has referred?

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act


Chesley William Carter: No, that is the very opposite of , what I said.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then why does the hon. member refer to the distance between his own constituency and the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, if it is his intention that the French shall have these historic rights and the privilege of fishing on these grounds?


Chesley William Carter: I think my hon. friend would understand better if he would remember that I said that at the closest point between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Newfoundland there is a distance of only nine miles. How can you get a 12-mile limit of territorial waters out of nine miles is a mathematical-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Problem.


Mr. Nowlan:: It needs an Einstein.


Chesley William Carter: -operation that is a little too much for me to deal with today.


Malcolm MacInnis: If the hon. member does not mind, I would remind him that the nine mile stretch would be available for both the fishing fleets from St. Pierre and Miquelon and those from his own constituency, and therefore there would be no need of a 12-mile limit at that particular spot.


Chesley William Carter: No. In broad general terms, Mr. Speaker, I think the principle of the bill is reasonable. It is necessary for the conservation of our resources and it is certainly essential for the welfare of my constituents. It is a principle on which we can stand, on which we can insist where it is possible to implement it, but I do not think we can insist on it in places where it clearly is not possible. There are exceptions to every rule and these exceptions have got to be ironed out between the parties concerned on a basis of what is conceded to be sensible and reasonable, and on the basis of doing unto others as we expect them to do unto us.


George Clyde Nowlan: I take it the hon. member is suggesting that we should have negotiations in dealing with this matter, rather than a unilateral statute such as is proposed here?


Chesley William Carter: Yes, I think I mentioned in the early part of my speech that negotiations are going on and that I questioned the propriety of debating this measure because the subject matter was more or less sub judice in view of the negotiations already in process.


Frank Howard: In the light of the co-operative attitude of the government on other private members' public bills, I wonder whether it would agree to move, as they did the other day, a motion that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries where the whole problem


can be dealt with. I see the Acting Prime Minister nodding his assent to that suggestion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Frank Howard: I am sorry I misunderstood.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was agreeing to a very wise suggestion made to me by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan).


Frank Howard: Could I have an answer to that suggestion? Apparently the government is not disposed to take that course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government is going to bring in a measure later.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to talk out the bill so my remarks will be very brief. I simply wish to express my support for the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) which is now under discussion in the house. In presenting the position of the government the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) I believe referred to the fact that this measure was superfluous because the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had already made a declaration to the effect that Canada was going to proceed with a declaration of a 12-mile fishing limit. I spoke on this subject some months ago, and pointed out that the government of British Columbia, as well as the organizations there, are vitally interested in this matter and support the principle. I believe the principle has general support right across the country.
There are some problems that have been referred to, but certainly the vital one is the matter of historic rights. I was going to suggest that as between the presentations of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, we find a middle course and have a phasing out period. Then, a little later in the discussion, the hon. member for New Westminster referred to that matter. I do not believe it is an insuperable difficulty.
At the moment we know that if the historic fishing rights are maintained, then our own fishermen will be at a disadvantage. It is pointed out in an article in the Globe and Mail of December 5, 1963, speaking of the maintenance of historic rights, that this would continue an incongruous arrangement in which, for conservation reasons, Canadian trawlers are prohibited from fishing in coastal waters which are open to foreign fishermen. I do not believe that is a desirable situation in which to put our fishermen. Therefore, even if we recognize the historic rights principle, we ought to recognize as well that Canada has prior rights in some of these waters. Some way should be found through

negotiation to resolve this problem to the satisfaction of Canada and the other nations as well.
We do not want to repudiate arbitrarily any commitment into which we have entered with a nation, but I believe other nations will have to recognize this matter is of vital importance to Canada. There seems to be some hesitancy about calling a meeting of the committee on marine and fisheries. We have discussed this matter on many occasions in the past, but there has been some hesitancy in calling the committee together. I think it is about time the committee got into action to deal effec-ively with some of the problems that are of vital concern to Canadian fishermen, certainly to British Columbia fishermen whom I have the honour to represent. I would therefore support the principle of this measure and trust that the house will give favourable consideration to it.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) is to be congratulated for introducing this measure for discussion. As he knows from some of my colleagues on this side of the house, and indeed from even an elementary knowledge of geography, this particular piece of legislation is one that is most important to the fishing industry of Newfoundland. There has been a suggestion from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that the subject matter of this bill be referred to a committee. It seems to me that we in Newfoundland are very heartened by this attitude, and by the attitude of the present administration toward this problem. We were all very pleased with the announcement last May by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and we are all aware that certain negotiations have taken place.
I expect that in the very near future Canada will declare the 12-mile limit. It seems to me that one could go on at great length about the merits of the 12-mile limit. I have heard no suggestion from any quarter as to the disadvantages of it, particularly so far as our fishermen are concerned. There are two things that are being said from time to time in discussion of this problem in Newfoundland. The first is that it will be a difficult thing to enforce a 12-mile limit, hence there will not be the substantial improvement it is hoped there will be. It is said that trawlers or drag-gers will continue to violate, perhaps with greater ease, a 12-mile limit.
In so far as that is concerned, I would say the 12-mile limit would be easier to enforce than the 3-mile limit. In many areas, particularly along the eastern coast of Newfoundland, the fishermen actually go from six
1723
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to eight miles off shore rather than 12 miles to engage in what is known as the inshore fishery. If a trawler violates the 12-mile limit there will be a couple of miles of grace to apprehend the culprit. It would seem the 12-mile limit would leave a little leeway and would clear the ground for the inshore fishermen.
The inshore fisherman of Newfoundland is one who, in the past, has been lost in the shuffle. Perhaps I could cite a reason that the fishermen were not well disposed to confederation in 1949. In 1890 the Bond-Blaine treaty, which would mean so much to Newfoundland, was virtually scuttled by an unimaginative dominion government. I am very glad, and the people of Newfoundland are very glad to know that the present Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) are prepared to make atonement for this previous unimaginative and unenlightened action on the part of the Canadian government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired and the house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
20e. Administration of the Immigration Act. $133,800.
["Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.", 'Progress reported.\nResolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.']
William Arnold Peters: Some time ago the question was asked, what is to be done under the Immigration Act in relation to the admission of nationals from countries to which various forms of restriction are applied?
The last time this matter was being discussed I mentioned that many of the Chinese immigrants who do enter this country enter under the authority of orders in council. The number involved is close to 40,000 people, every one of whom was an exception to the rules established by the act. I am informed that since then a large percentage of those who were permitted to live here by order in council have applied for the protection of the amnesties which were granted on at least three occasions by ministers in charge of immigration and citizenship.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration The difficulty which arises now is that the offences which took place prior to the last amnesty are continuing to take place. People are still entering this country illegally and applying under the order of July, 1962, for an amnesty in respect of their offence. This situation is serious because it comes extremely difficult to change or improve the immigration laws at a time when it is not possible to stop the lawlessness which is taking place under the existing provisions. The swing of the pendulum must be stopped before the act can be changed and modified.
What bothers me is that I have been made aware in various ways of a number of these cases, and I find that in each one little has been done to ascertain why the offence was committed in the first place. Some of these cases are unusual. One which came to my attention involves a father-a Canadian citizen-who sent his own daughter, also a Canadian citizen, back to China. She married her brother there and then brought him out to Canada as her husband. She has applied for regularization of the position under the terms of the amnesty, and this matter has now been resolved. Other cases are not so easily resolved. Some are still under investigation by the R.C.M.P., but when the inspection reached the stage of looking into the orders in council, that was the end of the matter.
In a legislative sense we have been able, by passing orders in council, to legalize what is essentially an illegal situation. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the R.C.M.P. to do anything about it. I had some dealings with several R.C.M.P. officers who were carrying out investigations in my riding. They of course were shortly told that they were not to visit me in the parliament buildings-that they were not to visit me at all. In fact this matter was closed.
I put a motion on the order paper for the production of all the papers and for the names of all the people involved. The reply was a voluminous one. I do not see how it will be possible for any individual to investigate these cases; I do not know how he would go about it. But I can say I am pretty disgusted with the R.C.M.P. and with the department itself for not pursuing these matters.
The nationals in this country who are vitally interested in the immigration laws were promised from time to time during the term of office of the former government that changes would be made. I give credit to the former government for stopping the orders in council; they stopped these exceptions to the law. This of course brought the whole process to a standstill in certain areas. Now I presume, we are going back to the old system of passing orders in council. I think it is a shame that we in this country cannot

find out exactly what has been happening in the past and see that it does not happen again.
I would like to suggest that the present minister is having a look at the channels of immigration in Hong Kong at the present time with a view to establishing the old system of bringing in immigrants under orders in council, so that he would have the opportunity of carrying out investigations which are outside the scope of the immigration branch. But I know that if we are really to be honest about what has happened in the past we must admit that there is hardly a member of parliament in this house who is not in the disgraceful position of knowing something about this immigration business, particularly about what has happened in the past with regard to Chinese immigration.
I do not think there is a member here who does not have some knowledge, and who is not now sitting tight and doing nothing about the knowledge he has.
I think this question must be brought out into the open so that everyone may know what is wrong with our immigration system, particularly as it affects Asiatics. If this frankness is expressed, the minister of immigration has an obligation to introduce new laws which will eliminate the excuse for abuses such as have taken place in the past. I have told the Chinese people in my riding that the government intends to change the immigration laws as far as the Asiatic people are concerned. I have told them that the government has promised to do this, that we have the word of the minister that it would be done this session. I cannot say that today, because hon. gentlemen opposite have not said they are going to change the law this session. But for three of four years we have been told that changes would be made. We have been given assurances to that effect. One investigating officer asked me how there could be these changes when the problems facing the immigration branch are the same now as they were four or five years ago, before the big investigation took place.
At the time the cabinet changes were made I was very hopeful that the then minister of citizenship and immigration would be left in charge of that department because he had done some good work with respect to the problems of Indian affairs. I had hoped he would be in a position to make certain decisions which would have clarified this situation with regard to immigration in general and Asiatic immigration in particular. Perhaps this only happens in my area, but I think if hon. members would really get around and talk to the Chinese people in their ridings they would find that many things are happening that have not been made public in the past. These are

the things, in the main, which we should prevent by legislating changes in the act. You cannot really blame a person in this country for wanting to bring over some of his close relatives, a son who is over the age of 21 or a mother who is under the age of 60, but very often these relatives do not meet the terms of the regulations as they apply at the present time. These people must wonder why we in parliament cannot solve some of the problems and why we allow the discrimination, that is so evident, to continue under the Immigration Act.
I see that the Minister of Justice is here. I think that perhaps he has more to do at the moment than he can handle. But if he has any time left over, I would like him to offer some assistance in the field of immigration because I know he has some understanding of the problem. This is a field that must be understood and a great deal of sympathy and consideration must be given to it. We in this country should be progressive enough to double our population in the next ten years. If we really wanted to do something for confederation we would increase the flow of immigrants into this country. We are a very large country in which many, many areas are not being developed at the moment because we do not have the population with which to develop them. I know the charge is often made that if we change the immigration laws and increase the number of immigrants into Canada we will increase unemployment. But in what fields would we increase unemployment? Is it not true that we will have to feed these people, house them, clothe them and provide the other services which are now surplus to our requirements? In this way we will be performing a great service to many of these countries which today are not able to feed and clothe their people.
I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, whether it is ^ the intention of the government to do nothing to solve the mess that is well known to exist in respect to immigration.
The other day I phoned an R.C.M.P. inspector because I was advised a particular matter came within his department. This matter concerned an investigation by the passport department of the R.C.M.P. The inspector said he would look into the matter and would phone back. This was several weeks ago. He has no intention of phoning back. Unless the government make up their minds that they want to do something about it, I am sure the inspector will not do anything about it, any more than will the constables further down the line. I thinV this is a field in which the government is very vulnerable, and we as a nation are
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration very vulnerable, because of the anomalies which exist in our Immigration Act.
I do not know whether the present minister intends doing anything about it, but I make the suggestion to you, Mr. Chairman, that he probably will not, because this is a department that requires a very strong minister. This problem requires someone who will spend a great many hours each day formulating a program that will cope with the problems which have obviously existed in the past. This situation requires someone farsighted enough to know that part of the future of Canada will rest upon the type of immigration policy that we develop.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister himself is not here but I wonder whether somebody else can give us an explanation of this item. There is here an item of $60,000 for publication of departmental reports and other material. It seems an inordinately large amount of money for the publication of departmental reports. I wonder whether we could have an indication of what this is for or what the material is that is mentioned in the item. Also, was there an item in the main estimates for this purpose?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the hon. member is asking about that part of the item that refers to the publication of departmental reports and other material. The difficulty there is that the stock, or the regular supply of informational material that they use apparently ran out and had to be replenished.


Frank Howard: Would this item refer to forms for letters, reports and that sort of thing?


George James McIlraith: It refers to the kind of pamphlet that the immigration department regularly uses and distributes.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, in answer to a question asked in the house not long ago it was stated that the minister intended to make a trip to Hong Kong for the purpose of considering a possible increase in immigration from among the refugees there. I wonder whether there is anything to report in connection with the trip the minister made to Hong Kong.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, the reason the minister is not here tonight is that he is in Hong Kong at this moment. He is trying to deal with the very point raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming, namely seeing whether we can do anything to improve immigration from among the Chinese population in Hong Kong.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Mr. Baldwin:: Was there any spare room on his 'plane?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
35e. Trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers, subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment; and payments to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $230,000.
["Was there any spare room on his 'plane?"]
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, from the wording of this item I gather it refers to assistance provided by the Canadian taxpayer to immigrants to reach Canada and to provide for them until such time as they become established in this country. Is this the item that used to appear in these estimates-the amount used to be $3 per day per person- which was paid to assist immigrants who came to Canada? Is that what this item represents?


George James McIlraith: A large part of the item has to do with the payment of family allowances for the first year immigrants are here; that is, before they come under the family allowance statute. The balance refers to welfare assistance payments. The reason for the increase in this amount is that in 1963 there was an increase in the movement of immigrants from 74,000 to 93,000.


Frank Howard: Could the minister give us the breakdown of this $230,000? What amount relates to family allowance payments and how much relates to other things?


George James McIlraith: The expenses required out of the family allowance provision amount to $390,000; the increased need for welfare assistance, due to the larger movement of immigrants during 1963, amounts to $35,000. This gives a total additional requirement of $425,000, offset by savings of $195,000 in other parts of the main estimates.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether the minister can explain if it is the policy of the government-and if it is, it is news to me- to pay family allowances to people who do not qualify or do not meet the requirements of the statute under which family allowances are paid. If this is the case, why do we not amend the statute and make this provision all-inclusive, rather than employing two different methods in this regard?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, this was in operation under the previous two governments, since 1955. It has been paid for children of immigrants in lieu of family allowances.


Frank Howard: Just because it has been in effect since 1955 is not a very good reason
[Mr. Badanal.l
to keep it in effect. If we are going to do this why do we not do it under the Family Allowances Act so that payment to children is effected, whether it be an actual family allowance payment or an amount of money which is equal to a family allowance payment?


George James McIlraith: This provision covers immigrants only. It is not quite the same as a family allowance payment. In addition it does not involve whatever the technical adjustment to the income tax return is called, which a citizen who receives family allowances deducts under the income tax provisions. That is why it is done in this way rather than under the family allowance statute.


Frank Howard: Then it cannot be a payment in lieu of family allowance. It is an amount paid to children of immigrants.


George James McIlraith: It is called family assistance, a slightly different terminology. Whether it is a new sort of family allowance or not, I do not know.


Frank Howard: But you just said it was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can say a word on this because I instituted this provision when I was minister nearly 10 years ago, and I am rather surprised that the hon. gentleman who has been here for so many years has only now learned of it.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is a pretty poor explanation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In order to prevent visitors to Canada from drawing family allowances for their children, it has always been provided in the law that the children must be here for a year. Anyone coming to Canada has to be here for a year before his children are eligible for family allowances. During a period of high immigration this seems very unfair to families of immigrants who are being encouraged to come to Canada. Therefore rather than amend the Family Allowances Act, this family assistance has been paid under the immigration vote.


Frank Howard: The hon. gentleman should not be surprised that I was surprised to hear about this, because when the President of the Privy Council recounted to the committee the history of this item he said it was to pay family allowances in that period of one year. That is what surprised me. I knew there were payments under the immigration vote to immigrants who were in Canada, but I thought it was in the nature of $3 per day, or it used to be something like that. In any event, whether or not it is family allowance or in lieu of family allowance, or some other designation is given to it, when one considers

the hon. gentleman's government, the one which preceded it and the one which preceded that, and the secret manner in which governments operate these days, is it any wonder we cannot get any information about what is going on?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to drag into the light of day something about which I have been endeavouring for five years behind the scenes to get a satisfactory answer, so far without success. Therefore perhaps I can get the answer in public that I could never get in private. It concerns a man who to all intents and purposes was a veteran of the Canadian army. He served in the Polish brigade, which was part of the third Canadian division. He has also been interned both by the fascists and the communists. He spent sometime in a fascist concentration camp and five years in a Siberian communist concentration camp. Then he returned to Poland and for the last six or seven years has been endeavouring to gain admittance to Canada.
As far as I can find out the only reason he has been excluded is because a sister-inlaw of his whom he has never seen in his life is a well known communist in Timmins. I should like to ask the minister or the department responsible whether that is a justifiable reason for excluding this man, or are there other reasons. Offhand I would say that one of the best influences we could have on some of our Canadian communists is the presence of people who have spent some time in a communist concentration camp. It would be an excellent influence on them, I think. I would ask the minister whether he can give any satisfactory reason why this man is denied entry to this country. I am sure the former minister is quite familiar with this case because I discussed it with him, as I did with the minister before him and the minister before him. I wonder whether there is any justifiable reason for this man's continued exclusion from this country.


Guy Favreau: If I may speak on this, as a very proud former minister of citizenship and immigration, the question raised by the hon. member is one which, in my opinion and I know in the opinion of the present minister, is of great importance at the present time and I hope the hon. member will believe me when I say it is under consideration and study.


William Arnold Peters: I have a request of the government under this item. Amongst other things we have allowed a certain amount of transportation, to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. I know a family who want to return to Czechoslovakia; I think that is their country of origin. The husband worked here for some time and became involved in
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration a mine accident, since when he has been unable to hold a job. The municipality has been paying welfare but this family seem to be just unable to maintain themselves. They are having difficulty with medical bills and wish to go back to their country of origin. I am wondering whether there is a section of the act which allows payment of travelling expenses to families such as this who want to be repatriated to their country of origin. They will be glad to leave.


George James McIlraith: I rather think there is no legislative provision for that kind of expenditure; but I am not very sure of my ground on this and would prefer to draw the matter to the attention of the minister on his return, rather than have my answer taken as correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs branch-
50e. Indian agencies-Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, and equipment including expenditures on works on other than federal property, $43,000.
['I rather think there is no legislative provision for that kind of expenditure; but I am not very sure of my ground on this and would prefer to draw the matter to the attention of the minister on his return, rather than have my answer taken as correct.']
Frank Howard: I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to make a general comment about the Indian affairs branch, its structure and organization. For a period of 10 years one Colonel Jones was the director of the Indian affairs branch. Without attempting to say anything disrespectful about Colonel Jones as an individual, I am quite sure that the procedures and disciplinary concepts and attitudes of a colonel were taken holus-bolus from his military background and transplanted into the Indian affairs branch. Unfortunately, as a consequence I think the Indian affairs branch became somewhat ossified and fairly strict in whatever it attempted to do.
Let me cite an example. A couple of years ago the Indian affairs branch developed a policy with respect to Indian housing, in which there were four different methods that Indian people could participate in the building of houses. I phoned someone in the department to ask for a copy of the brochure outlining this scheme. It has been distributed far and wide among the agencies and the bands, but even though the person I spoke to on the phone said he would send me a copy, a week went by before I received it.
Normally when one is dealing with a government department and phones for something, somebody in the clerical section will put it in the mail, but in every request I made to the Indian affairs branch during the time Colonel Jones was there, there was always a delay. In this particular instance I got a letter from Colonel Jones about a week or so later, referring to the conversation I had with somebody else, and enclosing a copy
1728	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of the brochure. I cite this as an example of the overly strict rigidity which prevented that department from doing anything worth while, other than in an administrative way, when Colonel Jones was the director.
Colonel Jones has now retired and the present director is Mr. Battle, who I gather is a person of an entirely different nature, background and interest, and many people in the branch hope, as I do, that Mr. Battle, with all the assistance he can get from the minister, will be able to transform the Indian affairs branch into something worth while. He has only been a short time in this position and miracles do not work overnight, especially when one tries to apply them to a branch such as Indian affairs.
When the main estimates for this fiscal year come before us, I hope the minister will be able to report on the changes that have been wrought in the Indian affairs branch and that we shall not have to persist in looking at it in a critical way, as has been necessary in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
60e. Welfare-operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $25,000.
['I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to make a general comment about the Indian affairs branch, its structure and organization. For a period of 10 years one Colonel Jones was the director of the Indian affairs branch. Without attempting to say anything disrespectful about Colonel Jones as an individual, I am quite sure that the procedures and disciplinary concepts and attitudes of a colonel were taken holus-bolus from his military background and transplanted into the Indian affairs branch. Unfortunately, as a consequence I think the Indian affairs branch became somewhat ossified and fairly strict in whatever it attempted to do.\nLet me cite an example. A couple of years ago the Indian affairs branch developed a policy with respect to Indian housing, in which there were four different methods that Indian people could participate in the building of houses. I phoned someone in the department to ask for a copy of the brochure outlining this scheme. It has been distributed far and wide among the agencies and the bands, but even though the person I spoke to on the phone said he would send me a copy, a week went by before I received it.\nNormally when one is dealing with a government department and phones for something, somebody in the clerical section will put it in the mail, but in every request I made to the Indian affairs branch during the time Colonel Jones was there, there was always a delay. In this particular instance I got a letter from Colonel Jones about a week or so later, referring to the conversation I had with somebody else, and enclosing a copy\n1728\tHOUSE OF\nSupply-Citizenship and Immigration of the brochure. I cite this as an example of the overly strict rigidity which prevented that department from doing anything worth while, other than in an administrative way, when Colonel Jones was the director.\nColonel Jones has now retired and the present director is Mr. Battle, who I gather is a person of an entirely different nature, background and interest, and many people in the branch hope, as I do, that Mr. Battle, with all the assistance he can get from the minister, will be able to transform the Indian affairs branch into something worth while. He has only been a short time in this position and miracles do not work overnight, especially when one tries to apply them to a branch such as Indian affairs.\nWhen the main estimates for this fiscal year come before us, I hope the minister will be able to report on the changes that have been wrought in the Indian affairs branch and that we shall not have to persist in looking at it in a critical way, as has been necessary in the past.']
Frank Howard: I wish to read the words outlining this estimate. They are:
Welfare-operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $25,000.
And the detail shows:
Grant to the province of Manitoba towards community development.
This may be a play on words but I think it represents the psychological attitude of the people who prepare the estimates, an attitude which many people have adopted in regard to welfare, but I do not think a grant, or an expenditure of money made directly by the Indian affairs branch for the purposes of community development should be classified as "welfare", because is is not welfare. The sooner we get away from the concept of welfare as applied in the Indian affairs branch to our native people the better, especially as it is applied to keeping those people in almost abject poverty and starvation. I merely make this as a suggestion for the future, because such words and designations used by the people who prepare the estimates are not in keeping with the enlightened and forward approach which we should have to Indian affairs and the Indian people in this day and age.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

7Oe. Economic development-operation and maintenance including the grants and contributions detailed in the estimates, $65,000.
['I wish to read the words outlining this estimate. They are:\nWelfare-operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $25,000.\nAnd the detail shows:\nGrant to the province of Manitoba towards community development.\nThis may be a play on words but I think it represents the psychological attitude of the people who prepare the estimates, an attitude which many people have adopted in regard to welfare, but I do not think a grant, or an expenditure of money made directly by the Indian affairs branch for the purposes of community development should be classified as "welfare", because is is not welfare. The sooner we get away from the concept of welfare as applied in the Indian affairs branch to our native people the better, especially as it is applied to keeping those people in almost abject poverty and starvation. I merely make this as a suggestion for the future, because such words and designations used by the people who prepare the estimates are not in keeping with the enlightened and forward approach which we should have to Indian affairs and the Indian people in this day and age.']
William Arnold Peters: I think the public are entitled to know what is the present state of the project called Ookpik, or something like that where a little imaginary owl developed in the Arctic has been violently abused, according to recent newspaper reports.


Lucien Lamoureux: The suggestion is made that the point now raised by the hon. member does not relate to vote 70e.


William Arnold Peters: Well, it very likely relates to the handicraft development program, though it may be the wrong department.


George James McIlraith: It relates to the Eskimos, not the Indians. The Indian affairs branch comes under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and that is what is before the committee at the moment. The Eskimos come under the jurisdiction of the department of northern affairs, and Ookpik belongs to the Eskimos.


William Arnold Peters: That is downright discrimination in the handicraft field. It is disgusting when you go into many shops and see totem poles for sale that are manufactured in Japan. Not long ago I spoke to one Indian chap who was developing and selling native Indian handicrafts in Ontario and Quebec, and it was his opinion that the department was doing absolutely nothing to help in this field. He had made application for assistance here in Ottawa, and he had a small store. I would like to know why he found it so difficult to get assistance. He said many of the people he had contacted in the department were patronizing in their attitude, patting him on the shoulder and saying, "You are doing a fine job," but they were not really interested in helping him obtain genuine Indian handicrafts. He showed a great deal of initiative but I understand he has gone out of business since that time.
In the northern areas especially there seems to be no co-operation between the native handicraft workers and the buyers. There is no assistance from the department and there has been a reliance on the Hudson's Bay Company for any trade that is done.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Frank Howard: I thought the minister was on the verge of giving some answer on the points raised by the hon. member for Timis-kaming, and I want to make some comments myself.


George James McIlraith: With reference to the case raised by the hon. member, if he cares to give the name of the person involved I shall undertake to have the case looked into. But

so far as the general activity is concerned this vote is to authorize moneys to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and the sale of such finished goods. Projects concerned with the production of Indian handicrafts, particularly some of the larger projects, have attracted greatly increased participation by craft workers this year, requiring unusually heavy expenditures and involving increased outlays for materials and supplies. That is the reason for the large supplementary which is greater than the vote in the main estimates.


William Arnold Peters: Is there organized assistance for Indians in the handicraft field in the same way as there is for Eskimos under northern affairs? The Eskimos have been assisted in forming co-operatives so they can do this work. I am interested in the Ontario Indians, particularly the Manitoulin Indians and the Temagami Indians, bands of the type that have been operating as tightly knit organizations. Does the department send in people to train them and give advice as to what kind of products can be sold? The little bird or animal that the Eskimos have has been a pretty good deal for them and I wonder whether similar assistance has been given to the Indians.


George James McIlraith: I do not know how closely the two programs can be compared, the one for the Eskimos and the one for the Indians. However, there is this development program for the Indians which provides assistance for their training in handicrafts and in selling their products. As I said a moment ago, it will be noted from this particular vote that the project seems to have gone particularly well and there seems to be a sharply increased demand for this kind of developmental assistance. That is the reason we are in these supplementaries asking for an amount greater than the amount in the main estimates under this heading.


William Arnold Peters: Is there any way that the department can protect the Indians against the importation of facsimiles? I refer to totem poles, Indian type slippers and Indian type beaded belts. We find them being imported from Japan. When you buy them at an outfitter's shop you find they are stamped "made in Japan". Because this is a protected field and because the Indians are having such a difficult job adjusting to our business community, I am wondering whether we have considered the idea of restricting the sale of facsimiles in Canada.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member has raised a pretty large question. As he knows, any
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration imports into this country require to have the country of origin marked on them. Then there is the protection to be obtained, as was the case with Ookpik, through the trade mark legislation or design mark legislation, or possibly the copyright legislation. In certain circumstances these acts can all be applicable to certain products. About all I can do now is to draw the minister's attention to this point to make sure that the department is applying the existing legislation to the maximum extent possible to protect the products of the Indians in the handicraft field.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, with regard to what the minister has just said, unfortunately the native Indian people do not know anything about copyrights or copyrighting for design and that sort of thing. Although it may be a bit late now, it might be a worthwhile venture for them to try to establish their rights, especially the west coast Indians who developed totemic carving. Incidentally, this carving is the only truly original North American art form developed on this continent. These carvings appear on totems, house poles, house fronts and now on plaques. These figures represent the inheritance of families of Indian people and are truly theirs if anything is theirs. Other countries have seized upon them and they now come back to this country in the form, for instance, of grotesque totems from Japan. They are sold as authentic Indian totemic carvings when in fact they are not.
A prime example of this is in the field of the argillite carving of the Haida Indians of the Queen Charlotte islands. For many years they have carved their tribal stories, their crests and the like on a slate called argillite and the work they do is beautiful. Many of the younger fellows are now taking up the old art handed down to them from their forefathers. These carvings are representative of an art and culture far surpassing most other art forms that exist in North America today. They bring a reasonably decent price. The price for an argillite totem carving is anywhere from $6 to $7 an inch and if they are larger poles, say three feet high, the price can range up to $20 or $25 an inch and in some cases more than that. They are well worth it too because of the beauty of the work that is done.
However, right in north Vancouver, British Columbia, there is a company operated by an individual by the name of Boris Mange who bought or somehow acquired some of the original authentic argillite carvings depicting the stories of two or three Haida families. I do not know exactly what his process is, but
1730	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration it is a chemical process involving the breaking down or liquefying of fibreglass which is then poured into rubber moulds and out of the mould comes a flat object which is scratch by scratch the same as the original. From a distance of a foot or two one cannot tell the difference between an artificial totem and an original carving. It is only when one picks up the artificial carving, holds it in his hand, finds it is much lighter and looks on the bottom that he finds it is not an authentic carving at all. It is only by close examination that this can be discerned.
These mouldings or castings have been sold and are probably still being sold in shops all across Canada. They are represented as authentic Haida or Indian carvings. I saw them first a year and a half or two years ago in a jeweller's shop on Elgin street. I was walking by the shop and saw this carving in the store. I was amazed to see them in Ottawa and I went inside to inquire about them. I had a lengthy argument with the operator of the shop as to their authenticity. He showed me a communication from a wholesaler in Toronto-I have forgotten the name -to the effect that these were authentic argillite carvings.
They were not authentic at all, they were substitutes. I have seen similar signs in other curio shops in different parts of Canada representing these mouldings or castings as authentic Haida argillite carvings. They are not. All that is shown on them is a shortened version of the individual's name on the bottom. This could be interpreted by those not familiar with the peculiarities of one of our native tongues on the west coast as the name of the individual. In fact, it is not. It is a shortened version of the name Boris Mange.
How does one protect himself against the mechanism of the individual whose sole concern is not the production of anything artistic or cultural but the production of a commodity purely for profit? Our native Indian people are not conversant with the copyright law. In fact, I understand from people in the legal field that this is a specialized branch of law which is highly complex. One almost has to make a lifetime study of the Copyright Act in order to appreciate all the intricacies of it. I believe that the crown, some government agency, could make a particular study of the copyright law and assist the native Indian people in attempting to protect, by law, their own designs which represent their inheritance from their families.
Whether or not this has ever been suggested before, I could not say. It was only upon invitation, following the minister's explanation, that I rose to deal with the question. I would appreciate some answer from the Minister of Justice or perhaps the Minister of Transport


who at one time was the minister of citizenship and immigration. Could a study be made of the copyright law to see whether or not it could be used to assist the native Indian people to protect their own designs, and particularly the designs of the west coast people in their totemic art?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, so far as I am concerned the problem is being raised, in this fashion, for the first time. I can say one thing, that this is certainly one aspect of the matter which ought to be given consideration and looked into.


Frank Howard: It is very kind of the minister to say it ought to be looked into. Will he look into it or will the government look into this particular aspect of it? If it would, it would be a great service.


Guy Favreau: I took it for granted that everybody knew, with a government like this government, when it knows something ought to be looked into it will be looked into.


Frank Howard: In dealing with any government, my experience has been you have to tie them down, hogtie them, get them to put it in writing, and then you have to look for the loopholes, particularly when you are talking to a lawyer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE Civil service commissionle. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $131,000.
['In dealing with any government, my experience has been you have to tie them down, hogtie them, get them to put it in writing, and then you have to look for the loopholes, particularly when you are talking to a lawyer.']
William Arnold Peters: Would the minister care to explain the increase in these salaries and contingencies of the commission?


George James McIlraith: It is for salaries, and for the whole general administration of the civil service commission.


William Arnold Peters: Was there any item covering the commission in the original estimate?


George James McIlraith: Yes, there was an item for $5,011,600.


William Arnold Peters: I notice that it has cost a considerable sum to advertise for recruiting purposes. I am sure that every member of parliament could offer some suggestions with regard to the system that has been used. I do not believe this large expenditure produces the results it is intended to produce. I should like to use as an example the translation staff. The former secretary of state was continually talking about recruiting for that staff. I expect he was using this system.
The charge has often been made, and I think quite legitimately, that a department head often frames the advertisement for an employee in such a fashion that only the person he has designated is available for that

position. Then there is the problem with respect to jobs that are classed as bilingual. I am sure some hon. members have noticed, as I have, advertisements for secretaries receiving a salary of less than $4,000 per year. The advertisement said she had to do 90 words a minute in shorthand and 50 words a minute on the typewriter in both languages. I would suggest if you found someone who could do that they would probably not be working for $4,000 a year. If they were, they would be working for the former secretary of state, because that is the type of person he required.
I do not know how long it is since we looked over these advertisements. As everyone knows, most of them are published in the post offices. A lot of them are sent to members of parliament, but they do not get anywhere for the very good reason that many members of parliament do not believe in going into that field of employment placing when we have an employment service through the unemployment insurance commission. I am sure that there must be a lot of duplication and waste in the presenting of these publications. In many cases, it appears to me they are directed only to those people the department heads wish to have. I should like to know if any change is contemplated in this procedure or if any changes have been recommended?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he intends to apply the recommendations of the Glassco commission to the civil service commission?
I would also like to ask a supplementary question. The Secretary of State (Mr. Lamon-tagne) stated some time ago that bilingual employees would get a special bonus. Is that the opinion of the minister and does he propose to implement the Secretary of State's suggestion?


George James McIlraith: With regard to the first question asked by the hon. member for Joli-ette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I want to point out that part of these supplementaries is for the establishment of a language training school. This school will provide an opportunity to unilingual civil servants to become bilingual. Some $16,000 of this supplementary is intended for that very purpose. As to the second question the hon. member asked, I am not aware that the Secretary of State made such a suggestion in the form in which it has been put forward. With regard to what was said about implementing the recommendations of the Glassco commission, I would not want to give a dogmatic answer 20220-110
Supply-Secretary of State without having before me the recommendations of the Glassco commission in detail concerning the civil service commission because I have found that with so many of these recommendations one might adopt a large part of the recommendation but there might be a defective part that one did not wish to adopt.
However, this subject matter is receiving very active attention. As I well know, a great deal of time is being spent on it now, with a view to implementing the recommendations of this particular royal commission. Some 70 of these recommendations have, in fact, been put into operation already and the new legislation which will be coming before this house later this session will provide an opportunity for discussing the matter more fully. I do not think I am improperly disclosing the legislation because it was referred to in the speech from the throne, but it is proposed that one of the ministers, the president of the treasury board, will have the responsibility, when the legislation is brought in on this subject, for bringing about the type of recommendation made by the Glassco commission, and examining the management of government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put another question to the minister. I would like to ask him if he shares the opinion expressed by a member of the government, namely that bilingual employees should get increased salaries. This is a direct question.


George James McIlraith: I have never heard that proposition put forward in that form and I would think the answer of any responsible person would have to be that, surely, this would not be the basis for a bonus if the duties to be carried out did not require the use of both languages. Surely the hon. member does not suggest that it should. It is a matter relating to a qualification for the particular work to be done.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, but the Secretary of State said that.


George James McIlraith: I do not think the hon. member will find he did so, in the form in which he has put it. If he disagrees, I would want to see the statement to which he refers. Personally I have no recollection of my hon. friend making such a statement and I have discussed related subjects with him from time to time at considerable length. I believe the hon. member will find that this added qualification, if you like, of being able to use both languages is better provided for bybeing integrated as a qualification for a particular job.
1732	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have another question to put to the minister. I know that he is intelligent and that he will give a straight answer to my question. If an employee speaks both languages, does the minister agree to give him a bonus, that is an increased salary or a special incentive?


George James McIlraith: I think the question as posed is unfair. Let me point out the reason for the difficulty about giving the kind of answer the hon. member wants. Suppose you have a requirement for elevator operators where no language is required to be used at all-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is a bad example.


George James McIlraith: Does the hon. member suggest that one man has to be paid more than the other because of the language qualification? Surely that suggestion is not inherent in the hon. member's question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask another question. Let us suppose that in the Department of Transport, for example, a branch director is bilingual, that is he can attend to the French speaking public as well as to the English speaking public. I should like the minister to tell us if he feels that it would be logical for such an employee to get a bonus or a special salary?


George James McIlraith: No, because the factor of the bilingual requirement is taken into account in setting the qualifications for the position, and the salary for the position has already been increased compared with what it would otherwise have been, because of the requirement for that added qualification.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I ask another question: can the minister assure the house that the civil servant who speaks both languages will get an increased salary from this government?

Close your mouth, or stand up to speak.


George James McIlraith: No, what I did suggest is that where this is a requirement for the position it carries with it a higher salary.


Mr. Ricard:: I should like to ask a few questions of the minister. The hon. gentleman said there were special classes for civil servants to acquire a second language. Is he in a position to give us any information as to the number of civil servants who are


taking these courses, and has he a breakdown showing us how many French speaking persons and how many English speaking persons are attending them?


George James McIlraith: No, I cannot give an answer offhand though I certainly would be glad to get the information for the hon. member. The courses seem to be in great demand and it is a matter of organizing them in order to meet the demand. I am sorry I do not have the detailed information.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Can the minister not give us an idea of the numbers of those actually attending these courses?


George James McIlraith: I do not think I would wish to do so. I have been too long a member of the House of Commons to hazard that type of guess. But I will get the information.


Frank Howard: May I say at the outset that I agree with the answer the minister has given in reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm about the payment of a premium or bonus if a person is bilingual. I think the minister's answer is a correct and reasonable one in view of the circumstances. If this were not the position taken by the minister and by the government, I would say that we in British Columbia would soon realize that in the case of an employee in the Department of Transport, for example, an official in the position of being an inspector of some sort, the ability to speak English and French equally well would be useless to him in his official capacity. He would be much better off if he were able to speak, say, English and Norwegian, or English and Haida, or English and some other Indian tongue. If there were to be premiums for bilingualism we would have to relate them to the effectiveness of being bilingual, and the advantage of being bilingual in English and French in Prince Rupert, for example, would be negligible as far as the performance of the job was concerned, and its relationship with the general public.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the reason why I am asking this question is, of course, on account of the large number of Canadians who speak French, and when they exchange correspondence with Ottawa, they have the right, as taxpayers and because the French language is recognized as official at the federal level, to be served in their own tongue.
The minister gave a rather evasive answer and refused to commit himself. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister why the present government created a royal commission on biculturalism, why it is spending

fairly large sums of money to conduct a nation-wide inquiry, and all that if it refuses later to take a position and inform the house whether it favours an increased salary for bilingual employees. The Secretary of State advocated that many times. It is all very well to have royal commissions on biculturalism, but I feel the government is wasting the people's money and such inquiries are meant but to fool the public, as shown by the government's refusal to take a stand and say what it intends to do in the case of bilingual employees.
Here is a precise question I am asking the minister and I would like him to answer yes or no. Is it the government's intention to give a bonus to an employee who speaks both languages and holds an important position in the government service?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think I have already given an accurate answer to the hon. member's question. The hon. member is trying to attach a bonus, or added payment, or whatever you call it, to the speaking of two languages. All salaries and all payments to all employees of the government service have been related to the duties they perform. They have been salaries for the work done or for the requirements of the position being filled.
I recognize as well as, or perhaps better than, the hon. member the necessity for having, in positions where there is any probability at all of a person having to speak either of our two main languages an employee who is able to converse in the two official languages. I recognize that better than the hon. member. In those positions certainly it will be a requirement of the position that, to the extent possible, if we can get the personnel to fill the positions, they will be filled by persons having mastery of the two languages. But I would point out to the hon. member that this was not the question he posed to me. He merely posed a question as to whether, in those other areas of the country in which there is no probability of a person being required to use the second of our two languages, either French or English as the case may be, a bonus would be paid to a bilingual person when no requirement exists in the position for this qualification. In other words, the language qualifications have always been related to the position and the requirements for the position. That is the way the added benefit will be received by particular employees.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I realize that it is important for the civil service to hold a competition for a government job in order to know whether the applicant is qualified.
20220-110J
Supply-Secretary of State But I would like to know from the minister whether he would deem it advisable to mention on the civil service commission's notices of competition that for the higher positions in the civil service a special treatment relating to salary, be granted bilingual employees?
Does he agree that such a reference should be made on the notices of competition of the civil service?


Mr. Habel:: Have you ever asked that of your leader?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I did and it was granted on several occasions.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the payment made for all employees in the government service, so far as I know, has been made on the basis of payment for the position. This is the case with regard to all government employees. The payment has been for the work being done, the training and work required to be done, rather than for some personal reason in respect to the person receiving the payment. I would think that is a reasonable position. Certainly the persons who have discussed this very large and very important question with me have always put it forward on that basis. They consider that any added benefit required to encourage bilingualism should be on the basis of a required qualification for a position warranting a higher salary for the particular position. That is the situation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, on March 5 last, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) said in Toronto that French Canadians employed by the federal government in Ottawa were frustrated and unfairly treated. I am, therefore, asking the minister whether he agrees or not with the views expressed by the Minister of Justice who said in Toronto that French speaking Canadians in the federal civil service were frustrated and unfairly treated?

Yes or no.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think I have a right, as long as I comply fully with the rules, to answer a question in the way I wish to answer it and in the way that I think will do justice to the question. I cannot be circumscribed in the form of that answer by the wish or request of the hon. member, however much I may wish to please him.
I think he should recognize that fact in asking me to answer a question. I will not for one moment accept the proposition that bilingual

Supply-Secretary of State staff in the civil service in Ottawa have been in any way frustrated, thwarted, or discriminated against.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: They have been in great demand, to my certain knowledge, over a period of years.

I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I do not understand the French language very well.

It is a matter of great regret to me that I do not understand the language well myself. But I have had to deal with this problem, as a member from this area living among great numbers of civil servants for years, and I know it is not right to say that this section of the civil service has been thwarted, or frustrated, when the fact of the matter is that there is a great shortage of them and a great demand for them. There are opportunities for promotion open to them that are such as to capture the imagination of eager young people who want to advance themselves in the public service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: I myself, as minister in the former portfolio which I held, spent a great deal of my time seeking to find ways and means of getting more of them to come into the public service and serve those areas of the country, particularly the St. Lawrence river areas, where the positions required that the persons filling them should speak both languages. I can tell the hon. member that I did not find any source of supply that could nearly meet the demand. If he wants my statement to be backed up by my giving him the titles of the positions, it can be done.
That is the history of opportunity for bilingual civil servants in Ottawa. That is why I am so very pleased with the work now being done by the government, part of it through this estimate, in making available training facilities to enable present civil servants to become bilingual more readily. This is a need in our country that is very real; and it is a mistake to say that there has been any discrimination against or any frustration on the part of any section of the civil service on account of language. That simply is not so, and has not been the case.


Murdo William Martin: I should like to make a comment on this interesting and important point which has been raised. I believe the government should consider the creation of a new category within the civil service for those who are truly bilingual. I do not place

in this category a person like myself; although I can understand and read French, I cannot express myself in the French language in the way I should like. The reason for this is simple; it is because I am thinking in English, and to be able to think in English and express myself with precision in French I would require training similar to that of the simultaneous interpreters we have in the chamber.
We have examples of what I mean in the civil service, and good examples here in the house. Some hon. members have not one person living in their constituencies who speak French. Other hon. members may not have one person living in their constituencies who speaks the English language. I think that if an hon. member of this type has a bilingual secretary, what happens after three or four years is that his bilingual secretary becomes a unilingual secretary. If you do not practise both languages constantly, sooner or later one of them is lost. I recall hearing a former member say that it is not enough to have a language in your head; you must also have it on your tongue before you become fluent.
Let me take as an example the riding of Danforth in Toronto. I do not think there is any need for the hon. member for Danforth to have a bilingual secretary. Similarly I do not think there is any need for the hon. member for Beauce to have a bilingual secretary. But for members from a constituency like mine, which is half French speaking and half English speaking, and in many other constituencies across the country similarly divided, I think there is a very definite need for a bilingual secretary. Many times I have difficulty and am put to delay and considerable personal expense in getting my letters translated so that I can reply to my constituents in the language with which they are more familiar. I can read their letters but I cannot write back without my words being correctly translated. If you do not know a language well and try to write it, it is easy to make a tragic mistake which can backfire badly.
I recall going to the United States not many years ago, and when I was near Boston, Massachusetts, I had occasion to go to a garage, the proprietor of which had a French name. I talked to him and found that he came not too far from where I was born and raised in the province of Quebec. He came from Magog, which is about the same distance from Sherbrooke as my town, but on the other side. I spoke to him in French and to my surprise he said he was sorry, that he did not speak French. He told me he had been there for eight years, it is unbelievable that a man can forget his mother

tongue in eight years. But that was true, and was because he never had the chance to speak French.
I think that where there is a need for a truly bilingual person in the civil service a special category should be created and a rate of pay offered as an encouragement. It is not the easiest thing in the world, particularly for a person from the far reaches of Canada, to prepare to handle a job of this kind. However, I think this is something which is needed, and needed badly, and people who have this facility are a great deal more valuable than those who have only the one language or the other. Therefore I think the government should consider the creation of a special category and provide a special rate of pay for people with this ability.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, on March 5 last, in Toronto, the Minister of Justice brought a serious charge against the civil service commission. He stated that French speaking Canadians were frustrated, in other words, that they were discriminated against. Therefore, I would ask the minister this specific question: is it his intention to ask the Laurendeau-Dunton commission to make an inquiry within all departments of the federal government in order to determine whether his assertion is correct?
I believe that the Minister of Justice brought a serious charge which reflects upon the honesty and the reputation of the civil service commission regarding the way French speaking Canadians are treated.
Could the minister tell the house if he would approve of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission making a full inquiry in all federal departments not only in regard to conditions with respect to French speaking Canadians but also with respect to English speaking Canadians?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether there is much I can usefully add to what I said previously. I read the text of the speech delivered by my colleague the Minister of Justice in Toronto with considerable interest and great care. My understanding of his speech is very different from that of the hon. member who has just spoken. If the hon. gentleman proposes to make these assertions about that speech I wish he would quote the text and refer to it precisely, because we are at variance as to the contents of the actual speech.
As to his second question, this royal commission has been appointed and its terms of reference placed before the house. That matter was dealt with at the time and I certainly
Supply-Secretary of State do not think it would be proper for me to interfere with, or intervene in, its work. I certainly have not thought about intervention, so all I can say to the hon. member is that I will consider his rather novel suggestion. However, I do not offer him any encouragement or give him any reason to suspect that I will take any action other than to note his remarks and see whether there is anything to this point. I do not think this item is the place to discuss the work of this royal commission and the possible extension of its terms of reference.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, when, some time ago, I asked the Minister of Justice a question concerning the statement he made in Toronto on March 5, he did not deny anything, he said nothing about that.
Once again, and for the last time, I am putting the question to the minister. If he wants us to pass this item without any trouble, it is up to him to give a definite answer, yes or no.
This is what I am asking the minister: does the government intend to amend the Civil Service Act so that employees who speak both languages, that is French and English, and who get, say, $4,000 or more a year may have a special bonus, that is a special payment, as advocated by the Secretary of State during the last election campaign?
If the minister refuses to answer categorically, clearly and plainly to my question, we will keep the minister on this vote for a week.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Well, this is blackmail.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Yes, it is blackmail. [Text]


George James McIlraith: I do not know whether the committee would respond kindly to such a naked threat as that. I do not think the hon. member quite appreciated the nature of his threat and I would hope, when he thinks it over, he would modify it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, that is serious. [Translation]
No, I am asking the minister to tell me whether, as advocated by the Secretary of State, the government intends to grant a special bonus to bilingual employees, because they speak both languages?
I would like to know exactly what the minister thinks-


Mr. Deschalelels:: What did you do during the six-year period you were in power?

Supply-Secretary of State


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -and I do not want the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to answer me, but the minister of-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: What did you do during the six-year period you were in power? .Text]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is not because you are on the government side you have more right than I.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Minister of Transport on a point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a point of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Minister of Transport on a point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) wishes to speak to the house, all he has to do is to rise.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It is none of your business.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. member for
Cochrane (Mr. Habel) also wishes to speak in this house, all he has to do is to rise and to let us hear him.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am raising a serious point of order, and it is that we are considering the estimates of the civil service commission, the supplementary estimates, the additional sums required to carry on the services about which the policy is already determined. Your predecessors in the chair have on many occasions ruled, particularly on supplementary estimates, that the discussion must be relevant to the estimate.
I have never before heard any member of the committee successfully maintain that until an estimate should be passed the government must declare some policy, on which the government itself had not necessarily reached any conclusion. To suggest that the estimates will not be passed until the government adopts a new or different policy is making, as my colleague the president of the council suggested, a kind of threat that I am sure the hon. member, who is a very amiable hon. member most of the time, never seriously intended to make, because the hon. gentleman is not at the moment in the government.
He is not at the moment a member or even a supporter of the government. Until this government is defeated, it has the responsibility for formulating policy, and then the house can decide whether it approves


that policy or not. It is a very strange doctrine to suggest on a supplementary estimate, when the rules are very clearly stated that discussion must be strictly relevant to the particular item, that the government has to make a declaration about a policy that has not been formulated at all. I am sure that on reconsideration the hon. gentleman would not wish to persist in that sort of course. [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, after the statement made by the Minister of Transport, I feel that the government is dishonest-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -and is behaving hypocritically towards the Canadian people.
Thousands of dollars are now being allocated for a royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I think that the Chair should make a ruling on the point of order just raised by the Minister of Transport. After all, as the latter pointed out, we are now considering supplementary estimates.
Vote No. le is made up of four particular items none of which can justify a debate of the kind in which the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is presently engaged.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that, if we want the house to consider the supplementary estimates, in a constructive way, as the opposition claims it wants to do, then let us address ourselves exclusively to the vote under consideration.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is the practice, I believe, when supplementary estimates are under consideration, to have a general debate on vote No. 1, and that is what is happening at this time. To shorten the debate, after it has been going on for more than half an hour, would mean that a new method is being used to prevent us from dealing with the question under study.
I believe that the Minister of Justice will admit that by carrying out his suggestion he would simply prevent us from obtaining information with respect to the civil service and to some methods which are followed within the service.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I should like to make some comment relevant to the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport. I think members of the committee will agree a good deal of latitude has been given this evening regarding vote No. le, but if the debate is to proceed certainly the Chair will have to ask all members to be particularly

relevant to the item before the committee. I would ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm, if he wants to continue his remarks, to have them relevant to the item before the committee.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I will abide by your ruling. However, I feel that the item under consideration allows me to make some general remarks.
Since the Minister of Justice got up to call me to order, and I think he did it in good faith, I wish to ask him-Mr. Chairman, I will wait until the Minister of Justice has stopped talking with his colleague.
1 ask the Minister of Justice to tell us whether it is true that on March 5 last, he stated in Toronto that French Canadians were frustrated by the civil service commission in Ottawa. I ask the minister to give me an answer. If he answers me, we will cooperate and I will be pleased to facilitate, if need be, the adoption of the estimates.


Guy Favreau: Even though this has nothing to do with any of the four items under study, I must say that I have too much faith in my hon. friend's intelligence to believe that he would speak as he does after having read my speech.
I shall then make a point of sending him a copy.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the statement- [Text]


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Skeena.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: O.K. I will come back, don't be worried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go and get the speech.


Frank Howard: That sounded like a threat to the Chair. It is always pleasant to listen to the volatile Union Nationale member from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


An hon. Member:: This is an honour you don't have.


Frank Howard: I do not know if I would use the words "honour" and "Union Nationale" in the same breath.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Come to my riding and say that and you will be defeated. You will lose your deposit.


Frank Howard: If that is an invitation from the hon. member even to set foot where he is, I must decline.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are so stupid, you know.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if Hansard caught that, but there was some reference to stupidity by the hon. gentleman.
Supply-Secretary of State


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I hope it did.


Frank Howard: I must say he is a master of that himself and undoubtedly will know what it means more than I do. I should like to ask the minister who is handling these estimates a question concerning the operations of the civil service commission having to do with the manner in which it establishes so-called eligibility lists for vacant positions. I do not know if I am using the right term, but apparently if a vacancy is posted people can bid on that particular job and then take an examination of some sort. Following the examination a list is established of the people eligible for that particular position. What policy is there with regard to the length of time that such an eligibility list is valid after it is originally established?


George James McIlraith: Appointments, as the hon. member knows, are made from the top of the list when the list is established. Normally the list is retained for one year. The period of time for which a list remains valid is determined by the commission itself but my understanding is that normally it is a year, although in the case of a large class where there is a very long list and few have been called the commission may maintain the list for a longer period, and sometimes does.


Frank Howard: I wish to object to the procedure of establishing closed eligibility lists even for a period of a year, and I would certainly object even more strongly to establishing them for a longer period of time. I am aware of an instance or two in this field and it was because of them that this matter first came to my attention.
Presumably the process of opening up a vacancy to competition is to give people who feel they are qualified the opportunity to bid for the job, and the person who establishes qualifications greater than those of the other contestants is posted to the position. But when you maintain a list of this sort in existence for a period of one year you are then preventing, should a vacancy occur in the same position, anybody else from bidding for the particular job, because a list has been established and that is it. It is closed and it is valid for a particular period of time.
In some cases this works to the detriment of individuals. I know of a case in point about which I have had correspondence with the commission. The circumstances were that a position became vacant and was filled. Then the job subsequently became vacant again within a very short period of time because the person who originally filled it was promoted to a higher position. A woman working in the same section of the department, who knew the office procedure, the personnel, the

Supply-Secretary of State problems and so on, asked for the right to bid on the particular job and was advised she could not because there was a closed list in effect. The next eligible person on that list lived in a community some 500 miles away by air and 900 miles away by road, and the woman who wanted to bid on the job was told she would have to wait to see whether this woman who was some 900 miles away by road was going to take it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just complained to me, Mr. Chairman, that I am speaking so loudly he cannot hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm.
This woman found herself prevented from even bidding for the vacant position, because of this closed list. I think this is unduly restrictive and interferes with what I consider to be the normal and reasonable right of a person, under the civil service structure, to bid for a job and to take a test to see whether or not he or she can fill the particular position.
Perhaps the maintenance of an eligibility list for a period of a month would not be an unreasonable interference with a person's right to bid for a new job, because I can see that all sorts of difficulties might arise when a person takes a new position. Although he has passed the test and qualifies for the position some difficulty may develop, with the result that he cannot fill the position or, as was the case in this instance, he may be promoted to a higher position. There are a variety of difficulties which might crop up and could result in the person's being found unsuitable or leaving the job within a period of a month, and it might result in unnecessary expense if the whole process of conducting a competition had to be gone through again.
But a one year period is far too long a time to maintain an eligibility list. 1 think people in the public service would be treated much more fairly if the minister, or somebody else, would take steps to see that the length of time eligibility lists are maintained is considerably shortened. In this way the right of the individual employee, according to what I understand is a principle of the operations of the civil service commission, to bid for a vacant, more senior and higher paid position and to enter into a competition with others for the particular job would be preserved. Once you have a list established you interfere with this principle for at least that period of time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this large and rather important aspect of the hiring practices of the civil service commission is one that should be debated when the minister to whom the commission is answerable is presenting his main estimates.


Rather than attempting to argue the matter now I would prefer to leave it for debate and discussion at that time. However, I will see that the point raised by the hon. member is drawn to the attention of the minister specifically concerned.


Frank Howard: I have communicated these views to the commission in a much shorter form, because they are contained in a letter and I wanted to express them publicly. I did not really expect to enter into conversation with anyone as to the propriety of my suggestion. I simply wished to air the matter publicly so that it would be on the record. The minister has indicated that cognizance will be taken of the point and I hope that some alteration will be made as a result.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, everybody
knows that French speaking employees earning $5,000 or more a year, in all the federal departments, represent about 5 per cent of the total.
When the Minister of Justice made his statement in Toronto, the civil service association raised protests. If the Minister of Justice made such a statement, it was certainly justified.
It is for that reason that I am asking the government what they intend to do to correct or improve this situation. We all know that during the last election campaign, the Secretary of State and others travelled throughout the province of Quebec stating that the French speaking civil servants were discriminated against and did not have a fair share of positions. Well then, I am wondering what the government intends to do to remedy this situation.
As I said before, the government has spent hundreds of dollars to create the royal commission on biculturalism in order to try and find a solution to the problem, but in practice, the present government refuses to face up to its responsibilities and to take positive action.
Let me give an example, if I may. During the last session, the Minister of Industry appointed two deputy ministers, neither one was French speaking. I ask the minister once again whether he intends to carry out the suggestions made by the Secretary of State during the last election campaign, in view of the fact that those undertakings were published in all French newspapers. Does the minister intend to give a bonus or a special pay rate to bilingual Canadians, whether they be French or English speaking? I should like to have a specific answer from the minister; otherwise, we would have to force the government to state its position, even if we have to discuss this item for three weeks.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No. I would like to know from the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the fair treatment of all Canadian citizens and who has the great responsibility of administering justice in the country, whether he intends to implement the promises made by the Secretary of State to the effect that bilingual Canadians-of either French or English origin-employed by the federal government should get an increased salary when they speak two languages and possess two cultures.


Mr.   Chairman@: Is the item carried?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say this: I know that most members on the government side do not agree with the views expressed by the Secretary of State and do not want by any means that the French culture should spread in the civil service and that bilingual Canadians should take their rightful place within the civil service, whether they are French or English speaking.
But what I cannot understand is that, during the last election, the Secretary of State made promises throughout Quebec, saying that if the Liberals came into power, bilingual Canadians would get a fair treatment and benefit from a special bonus for being able to speak both languages.
It is all very fine to have a royal commission on bilingualism and to try rousing Canadian opinion from sea to sea, but I think that it is high time for the government to go ahead and take some action. The government should tell us what it intends to do, whether it means to keep the promises made by the Secretary of State and grant a special bonus to bilingual employees in the federal civil service to those in the higher positions.
That is what we want to know. Even if the members sitting on the treasury benches try to have this item rushed through, I want to obtain a precise answer, I want the responsible minister to simply tell us: we shall grant a special bonus to bilingual employees or we shall not.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Marcel Lessard: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm would perhaps agree to reply to a question? Could the hon. member assert that the members of his party will give his request for a special bonus for bilingual civil servants, the same support he is requesting from the Liberal members?
I think his party, in this respect, did not give more, and he should not ask for more.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am happy to belong to this group, because my leader, when he was in
Supply-Secretary of State power, presented the Canadian Bill of Rights and granted equal rights to all the citizens in this country. More especially-


Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: I wish I had a direct reply.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -more especially-I shall
give you an example. When we were in power, we appointed Mr. Chagnon-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Yes or no?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes. We appointed Mr. Chagnon associate deputy minister of agriculture and we gave him responsibilities equal to those of the deputy minister.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Name some more.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A few weeks later, there was a change in government and I can tell you that, in the federal Department of Agriculture, Mr. Chagnon can no longer make any decisions.


An hon. Member:: That is false.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He has no responsibilities at present and he did complain about that.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member wanders somewhat from the item now under study.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I do not think I am wandering from the subject, because I am entitled to speak of a particular department and a particular official, since we are studying an item concerning the civil service commission. I am entitled to speak about this.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member will admit that I was merely trying to help him by making this remark.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would you please repeat, Mr. Chairman? I did not understand.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member will recognize that I was trying to help him.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I want to emphasize that I hold you in high esteem, but you certainly wanted to help the house, and perhaps more especially the government, which is very embarrassed by the statement made a few months ago to the effect that a special bonus should be given-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; is the hon. member for Skeena rising on a point of order?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.

Progress reported.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Departmentle. Departmental administration including the expenses of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ministerial meeting in Canada, May, 1963, $56,000.
lOe. Representation abroad-Construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings, $225,000.
15e. Canada's civilian participation as a member of the international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China, $6,000.
External aid office-
99e. Contribution to the Canadian Red Cross in aid of disaster victims in east Pakistan, $10,000.
lOle. Purchase and shipment of trivalent oral polio vaccine to the government of Barbados as a gift, $5,500.
102e. Contribution to the Canadian Red Cross to assist in the relief of victims of the earthquake in Yugoslavia, $10,000.
103e. Emergency relief in the form of canned hams and powdered skim milk to the government of Brazil, $5,000.
104e. Contribution to emergency relief in the Caribbean islands, $20,000.
Other payments to international organizations and
programs-
115e. Assessment for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1964, which is, $977,500.
117e. Assessment towards financing the United Nations emergency force in the amount of $551,979 U.S., for the period January 1, 1964 to December 31, 1964, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1964, which is, $596,200.
125e. Payment to the international civil aviation organization in part reimbursement of compensation paid to its Canadian employees for Quebec income tax for the 1962 taxation year, $6,100.
146e. To reimburse the agricultural products board for the export value of skim milk powder donated to international relief agencies, $490,400.
147e. Contribution to the gift program for the United Nations building in Santiago, Chile, $10,800.
149e. Assessment towards financing the Laos international commission, $84,100.
Loans, investments and advances-
L17e. Additional advance to the working capital fund of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in an amount of $3,268 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of February, 1964, which is, $3,600.
[Stage Direction]
Immigration branch-
35e. Trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assitsance for immigrants and settlers, subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment; and payments to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $230,000.
Indian affairs branch-
50e. Indian agencies-Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including expenditures on works on other than federal property, $43,000.
60e. Welfare-Operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $25,000.
70e. Economic development-Operation and maintenance including the grants and contributions detailed in the estimates, $65,000.
Immigration branch-
20e. Administration of the Immigration Act, $133,800.
30e. Field and inspectional service, abroad, $134,800.
[Stage Direction]
Friday. April 3, 1964