1964-11-03

Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have stated on several occasions in reply to questions by hon. members that all aspects of Canadian sealing operations conducted off the east coast of Canada were being carefully examined with a view to bringing more restrictive regulations into effect before the next sealing season starts next March. I am pleased to be able to inform the house that new regulations to conserve the seal stocks and to ensure the use of humane methods were passed by order in council P.C. 1964-1663 on Thursday, October 29.
In view of the interest shown by many hon. members I wish to outline a few details of the new amendments to the existing seal protection regulations.
During the sealing season of March and April, 1964 newspapers and television stressed that very young seals were taken in this fishery and were killed with clubs. Unfortunately the inhumane aspects of the fishery were exaggerated by giving prominence to the few instances when inexperienced hunters did not kill the seal with the first blow. Hundreds of letters and petitions of protest were received from interested individuals and societies in Canada and the United States.
A month or two later another storm of protest arose when an erroneous article appeared in a German weekly newspaper which was widely reprinted by other European papers and, more recently, by certain Canadian newspapers. Indignation was aroused because the article stated that the seal herds off the east coast of Canada had declined from 20 million to 1 million animals during the last two years. The estimates of our scientists, based on aerial surveys and tagging experiments conducted for many years, indicate that the decrease has been from 3 million to 1J million animals over a ten year period. The feelings of humane persons were 20220-614
shocked by the statement that the animals were deliberately skinned alive in order to produce a more beautiful pelt. This statement was completely without basis.
Because of the widespread public concern I instructed officials of my department to examine all aspects of the seal fishery, including the considerable body of scientific evidence on the condition of the stocks, the effectiveness of the current seal protection regulations and their enforcement, and the methods used in commercial sealing operations. A meeting was then held in Moncton on May 20 with representatives of the Canadian sealing industry to discuss proposals to amend the seal protection regulations. A draft of the new regulations was prepared, and this was discussed again with industry representatives at a meeting in Ottawa on October 1. I then invited representatives of the major Canadian conservation and humane societies to meet with me on October 14 to obtain their views on the draft regulations. Careful consideration was given to all the views expressed by the representatives of these various interests.
The new regulations provide for much stricter control both to conserve the seal herds and to ensure against inhumane practices. To give better control over sealing operations, all vessels over 30 feet and all aircraft used in sealing will now require licences, as will all the seal fishermen they carry. As a conservation measure, the season for licensed vessels and aircraft will be shorter both in the gulf of St. Lawrence and in outer areas. To protect the mature females, which are most important for the maintenance of the herds, the killing of adults is now prohibited in the so-called breeding patches where the seals have their pups. To reduce waste it will be required for the first time that all seals killed in any one day must be landed ashore or on the sealing craft that same day.
The new regulations limit the use of aircraft for transporting sealers or skins to the gulf of St. Lawrence south of 50 degrees north, where their use is now well established, and in this area the number of young harp seals taken by vessels and aircraft will be limited to 50,000. This is an important new measure. To reduce inhumane practices the new regulations require that the clubs used

Regulations Respecting Sealing be long and heavy enough to kill at one blow, and that no seal shall be skinned before it is dead. The use of set lines with hooks for catching seals is also prohibited.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that these measures will assure the maintenance of the seal herds and will go a long way to reduce inhumane practices and waste. I wish to assure the house, however, that my department will maintain the closest possible surveillance of the seal fishery so that, if necessary, further restrictions can be put into force. During the coming season commencing early in March, 1965, our patrol of sealing operations by land, sea and air will be greatly intensified to assure that the regulations are observed. The results will be carefully studied.
At the request of major Canadian conservation and humane societies I shall provide an opportunity for representatives of these societies to visit the site of sealing operations and obtain first hand knowledge. After the 1965 season it is proposed to hold further discussions on the regulation of the fishery both with the industry and with the humane societies.
I firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that these measures will maintain the seal herds and permit the Canadian industry to develop in an orderly manner. This industry is very important to many coastal communities dependent on the resources of the sea.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be general satisfaction with the announcement made by the minister, although I was somewhat surprised that he went out of his way to criticize various Canadian newspapers which in the interests of the preservation of humane methods of killing gave publicity to what was apparently gross cruelty among certain sealers though not by any means the majority of those who participate in sealing.
I want to say, too, that what is set forth in the announcement is further evidence of the beneficial effects of public opinion when aroused. All over this nation men and women in all provinces were asking for action. I am glad that action has been taken, and also that in the regulations now to be promulgated provision will be made for conservation so the industry may flourish and expand while at the same time ostracizing everything in the nature of cruelty.
[Mr. Robichaud.)

On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question to clarify an aspect of the welcome statement he made regarding sealing regulations. Is it anticipated that nationals of other countries will be excluded from hunting seals in the gulf of St. Lawrence? Will the coordinates under the legislation that was passed be established in time, and will this have the effect of excluding all nationals from sealing in the gulf of St. Lawrence and other national waters? Second, what initiative is the Canadian government taking with regard to the general problem of the conservation of the seal herds as far as sealing on the high seas is concerned?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question I wish to assure the hon. member and all hon. members of this house that there will be no discrimination in so far as Canadian or foreign vessel operators are concerned; in other words, all foreign vessels will be subject to the Canadian regulations. In connection with the effect these further regulations will have on operations outside the gulf of St. Lawrence, this matter, as I have stated before in the house, is under consideration by ICNAF. New regulations have been suggested for discussion. They have already been ratified by a certain number of countries, but I understand that more countries are going to accept these regulations so that we can make them effective according to the ICNAF terms of reference.
I may also add that in so far as the operation of foreign vessels in the gulf of St. Lawrence is concerned, they will be subject to the implementation of the law of the sea.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether regulations have yet been made to govern the use of helicopters in the seal hunt?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear in my statement that helicopters were affected by the new regulations.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the

Secretary of State and I should also like to draw this question to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, the premier of Quebec, Hon. Jean Lesage, has accepted a decoration, namely the Grand Cross of the Royal Order of the Phoenix, from His Majesty King Constantine of Greece, and presumably the premier of Quebec is retaining his Canadian citizenship, can the minister inform the house whether Lord Thomson of Fleet, who accepted an honour from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, will now be permitted to recover his Canadian citizenship?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Slate):: I will be pleased to look into this matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Is the minister aware that, according to an editorial in yesterday's VAction Catholique, the C.B.C. refused to present or produce a program on which Mr. Lorenzo Pare had been invited to express his views on the occasion of the Queen's visit to Quebec City? The C.B.C. claimed that the subject was too controversial but, on the other hand, they invited Mr. Berque, from France, whose program was recorded at the Palais Montcalm last October 2, to describe to Quebec the beauties of the separatist-communist revolution.
Is the Secretary of State aware of those facts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with the instructions given to me by the house itself, it is not in order to comment upon statements made in newspapers. [Later:]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the minister inquire of the C.B.C, authorities as to which Montreal clique, within the corporation, decided not to present an interview with newspapermen on the occasion of the Queen's visit in the province of Quebec, under the excuse that the matter was too controversial, while at the same time the same clique gave to a notorious communist the opportunity to be heard over the C.B.C.?
Would the minister inquire about the reasons behind such action and then tell the house what is going on in the C.B.C.?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to get the information for the hon. member and the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to answer the question I put to him yesterday.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the question raised by the hon. member concerning the municipal winter works incentive program, a number of municipalities which have projects on which they are ready to start work have been unable to submit their applications to the provincial governments and to the federal Department of Labour by the commencement date, November 1. As a result the total number of applications received this year is less than last year.
To help meet this situation the provinces are being informed that applications, covering acceptable projects, received in the Department of Labour by November 9 will be accepted with effect from November 1, and if this date does not give complete satisfaction consideration will be given to a later date.


Guy Marcoux: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell the house why approval of those municipal loans was delayed?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the delay has resulted from the processing of the forms which had to be translated and sent out anew this year. This may have caused the delay which we are attempting to meet by this particular method.



REQUEST THAT PENDING LEGISLATION BE CONSIDERED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with a matter that has been raised on a number of occasions, namely the request of the truckers across Canada who operate in interprovincial trade to have the question of the labour code submitted to a committee so that an opportunity will be available to them, and to such other industries as the wheat pools, to press for their exemption from the code when the rate of pay of their workers is over $1.25 an hour. I may say the truckers' average rate of pay is $2.90 an hour.
Again representations have been made to me asking that these people be given an opportunity to make their views known. In view of the fact that we have brought this to the attention of the Minister of Labour on a number of occasions I would ask the Prime Minister, in the interests of all Canadians, that this matter be permitted to come before a committee so that evidence might be placed before it to support the request of these two organizations and of others who believe they should not be subject-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -to the provisions of the labour code providing their rate of payment is $1.25 an hour or more.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: It was only yesterday that the Minister of Labour said this matter was under consideration. Meanwhile I can assure the right hon. gentleman that the representations which have been received from the organizations in question have been given very careful consideration indeed.



PICTOU COUNTY, N.S.-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask the minister

whether he has received a telegram from the president of the united steel workers of America, local 4702, Pictou, Nova Scotia, regarding the possibility of a naval refit to help out the unemployment situation in that area. If so, has the government decided on something in this regard, or will this request be taken into consideration?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a telegram, a copy of which the hon. gentleman has read. We are now exploring any possibility there may be to help out the situation at Pictou.



CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.-ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT FOR MEN TO BE LAID OFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry concerning the economic livelihood of a number of my constituents. Is he able to report any successful efforts relative to securing an alternative source of employment for the men at the Enamel Heating plant at Charlottetown, whose present work contracts are soon to terminate?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as a result of efforts made by the Department of Defence Production arrangements have been made to provide the necessary base load of work for Enamel and Heating Products Company to enable them to compete successfully in the production sharing program with the United States. This arrangement has been and is working out quite satisfactorily, and I think the workers of Enamel and Heating should be rather pleased at what has been done in this direction.



PRESS RELEASES ON WINTER WORKS IN ENGLISH ONLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Lapointe, may I advise him that there is a weekly summary of press releases sent to both French and English language newspapers. We have attempted to keep this list up to date and observe it meticulously. If there is a newspaper to his knowledge which is not receiving these bulletins in the appropriate language and he draws the situation to my attention, I will be glad to remedy it.



TRADE SUGGESTED VISIT TO MAINLAND CHINA BY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that one of the senior ministers of the U.K. government has visited mainland China to discuss trade matters with the Chinese government, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce consider doing the same thing?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I am under the same disability as my hon. friend when he was a minister. He did not go to China either. However, I have had some discussion with my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in view of the special relations or lack of relations that exist between the two countries I would have to be guided by his general policy in this respect. This does not necessarily rule out a visit, but the situation would have to be looked at very carefully before a minister of the crown, whether myself or someone else, would go.



DISTRIBUTION OF APPLES TO MARK NATIONAL APPLE MONTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct attention to the fact that November is national apple month. I know it is not necessary to address a question to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the minister of national health on the importance of our apple production, its value as an export and money maker for Canada, the apple's prime health giving qualities and its great enjoyment in eating, for these are well known. And, Mr. Speaker, may I say in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, that the apples distributed today to hon. members, senators and members of the press gallery are of the famed B.C. variety known as "Delicious," and a delicious reminder that November is national apple month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Inquiries of the Ministry



STATEMENT AS TO FRENCH EDITION OF GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question which the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) asked me some time ago concerning the date of publication of the French version of the telephone directory of the government of Canada.
I am informed that this directory will be ready within three weeks and that steps have been taken to ensure that in the future both editions be printed at the same time.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State.
Can he tell us why, this year, the French telephone directory will be printed six, months after the English directory? Can he also give us the reasons for this unwarranted delay?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the English version was sent to the translation bureau too late. Furthermore,
despite all our efforts at the present time, the translation bureau is overloaded with work.


Gilles Grégoire: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that the translation bureau is overloaded with work, does the minister intend to increase the personnel of the federal translation bureau?


Maurice Lamontagne: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I will have supplementary information on this subject for the hon. member for Lapointe
and for the house when the estimates of my department are discussed.


Mr. Auguste Choquetle (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell the house whether the delayed publication of the telephone book is due to the fact that members of the Ralliement Creditiste systematically refuse to pay their phone bills?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere has just; mentioned the fact that members of the Ralliement Creditiste systematically refuse to pay their phone bills.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I must say that I rise on a question of privilege on behalf of most members. We protest against the fact that we are being asked to adopt measures in the house and that the government fails to implement them afterwards.
In addition, the committee on procedure and organization has recommended that those phone bills be paid; now, the government has ignored this recommendation and still refuses to implement a measure already passed by the house on two occasions.
We do not refuse to pay those telephone bills, but we feel that the government should implement measures adopted by the house.



REPORTED PRESSURE ON DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICERS TO RESIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he check with the chief electoral officer whether it is true that Liberal organizers have brought pressure to bear upon district returning officers to force them to resign?
I would ask the Secretary of State to seek information from the chief electoral officer and to report to the house.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that there is any basis to the accusation implied in the question, but I will be glad to secure that information.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
When we ask the Secretary of State to check whether our information is correct, he does not have the right to say that we are making implications or accusations. That is dishonest on the part of the minister.
I have the right to ask the minister to get information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for St. Mary would care to rephrase his question, because it seems to me it contains certain allegations which should be substantiated by facts.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Secretary of State.


Could the Secretary of State inquire from the chief electoral officer whether pressure was brought to bear upon the returning officers so that they would resign from their jobs?


Maurice Lamontagne: I shall be pleased to obtain this information, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as chairman of the house's internal economy commission.
Does the minister intend to take action with respect to the report of the special committee on procedure and organization and more particularly concerning report No. 12 or 13, which was unanimously carried by the house and which deals with telephone, telegram and telecommunication expenses?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of Ihe Privy Council):: I am not aware precisely what the hon. member has in mind, but if he is referring to the right of members to have their long distance telephone bills paid I would point out that under the legislation applicable this could only be done with the approval of the house, and that the commissioners of internal economy have not brought forward any submission on that subject for approval by the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question?
Has the President of the Privy Council read the report of the special committee on procedure and organization which received the unanimous approval of the House of Commons, recommending the implementation of Bill No. C-91, passed last year, which provided that telephone expenses incurred by members be paid by the internal economy commission?



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald Augustine Regan: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, arising out of an article which appeared in this morning's edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail to the effect that a new West Indies federation has been agreed upon by seven of these British colonies, including Barbados. Does the government intend to convey to Britain and to the seven colonies concerned Canada's special interest in this project, and does the government intend to offer special aid to the fledgling nation once it achieves federation, since Canada's relations with the proposed new nation should be closer than those with any other country?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Canada has noted with great interest the formation of this federation and has already expressed in a message its best wishes and congratulations. I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the increase in Canada's external aid program which is designed to provide greater assistance to the Caribbean area.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. On the C.B.C. news last night there was a story to the effect that Mrs. Espaillat, the wife of the ex-security chief of the Dominican republic, is being asked to leave Canada by tomorrow midnight. As I understand it, her visitor's visa expires November 20 and she has been given no reason why she has to leave tomorrow. I wonder whether the minister could explain to the house and the country the reason for the sudden desire to deport Mrs. Espaillat and the three children who are attending school in Montreal.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Espaillat was deported from the country several months ago while Mrs. Espaillat remained in Canada with her children provided she would herself look after her departure for
Inquiries of the Ministry Portugal. She obtained from Portugal a visa providing for her entry into Portugal until the beginning of November and it was essential, in order to maintain the unity of that family, for Mrs. Espaillat and her children to join Mr. Espaillat before the said visa expired.
I was informed this morning that the Portuguese government was willing to extend Mrs. Espaillat's visa until next spring so that her children could at least complete the school year they have started in Ottawa. I am now reconsidering the case in the light of that new development.
ONTARIO-MOVEMENT OF SKILLED WORKERS FROM HONG KONG AND JAPAN On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether it is true that Canada will bring over 15,000 workers from Hong Kong and Japan in order to meet an acute shortage of manpower, as stated by Mr. Stanley John Randall, minister of economic development of Ontario?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the report is true. I did read it in the newspapers, and I have no doubt that if Mr. Randall, when he returns to Canada, has any proposals of this kind to make he will take them up with the proper federal authorities.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-MEETING WITH MINISTER RESPECTING MILK POLICY On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister tell the house whether he has met lately with the Quebec provincial minister of agriculture, Mr. Courcy, concerning a new milk policy?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I met the minister of agriculture and his officials a week ago today.


Mr. Jean-Paul  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Is he in a position to announce a federal-provincial agreement intended to improve the situation of the dairy industry?
tText]


Harry William Hays: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker. When we are it will be announced in the usual way in the House of Commons.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to consider the policy which was in effect before his appointment to the office of minister of agriculture, a policy which was satisfactory for farmers?



TURKEYS-INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO MAINTAIN PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of agriculture I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has thought of, discussed or is prepared to institute any immediate plan in regard to the turkey producers, who he is driving not only to the wall but up the wall?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a colleague of mine would say if he were here, this is a question of urgent national importance which I will address to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can she tell the house whether there is any significance in the fact that all the hon. ladies on the Liberal side of the house are today dressed in red?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that this matter falls within my departmental responsibilities. It is difficult enough for one woman to speak for herself let alone for two others, but I imagine it has something to do with the fact that not only is it the more prominent of the two Canadian colours but it is also the colour of the party we represent.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning newspaper accounts of a fire which is alleged to have taken place on the Bonaventure when in drydock at Saint John. Would the minister have any information to give the house about this matter?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have very little additional information. As has been reported there was a fire on the Bonaventure which began in one of the refrigeration areas. Regrettably it resulted in tragedy, in that one civilian worker was asphyxiated. An investigation is being carried out to determine the cause of the fire.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister report any success in his efforts to have the maritime trustees appear before a parliamentary committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there has been under discussion with representatives of other parties a motion which would refer this matter to the industrial relations committee, giving that committee the opportunity of meeting with the board of trustees. It is my wish, if this motion can be adopted without debate as soon as it appears on the order paper, that the board of trustees appear before that committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is there any foundation for the press report to the effect that the members of this board will be resigning immediately after the election of the S.I.U. officers has taken place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard a report to that effect.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. In respect of the circumstances stated by my hon. friend affecting the cooperage trade, this is the result of a decision taken by the local insurance officer, ruling this group as not eligible for insurable employment. These persons are free to appeal this ruling to the commission itself and later to an umpire.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister not agree that the national employment office, or the inspectors employed by that office, were derelict in their duties in that in 1959 they made no mention of these facts as presented by the minister, and in view of the fact that contributions have been accepted from the employer of these coopers since 1959 and benefits have been paid? Would he not agree that it is unfair to place this responsibility upon the coopers at this time, when it appears that the deficiency lies within his own offices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the ruling made in 1959 was disregarded by the principals involved, who continued to make contributions on behalf of these employees.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. From what source does the employer obtain unemployment insurance stamps?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question which relates to the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. The complete disregard of the regulations in 1959 would be impossible unless the unemployment insurance offices also disregarded the regulations. Surely the responsibility rests with the department itself.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a queslnterim Supply
tion to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister give the house any idea what position in the legislative priority list is occupied by the government's legislation in regard to veterans benefits?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of program and priority is now under consideration. I hope there will be an announcement made in this regard before the end of the week.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $740,710,974.77, being the aggregate of
(a)	two twelfths of that total of all of the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, as reduced, except finance item 15, mines and technical surveys item 25, national research council item 10, and transport items 15 and 25 for which the proportion is one twelfth and atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 20, forestry item 25 and legislation item 20 for which no proportion is being released, $651,829,576.84;
(b)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of public works item 70 (schedule A), of the said main estimates, $666,666.67;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of fisheries items 5 and 10, legislation item 5, mines and technical surveys item 70, post office item 1 and public works item 40 (schedule B), of the said main estimates, $20,263,800.00;
(d)	two twelfths of all of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, and loans, investments and advances items L12a, L17a and L37a for which no proportion is being released, $20,612,522.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103a (schedule C), of the said supplementary estimates (A), $872,966.67;
(f)	nine twelfths of the total of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (B), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $46,215,108.75;
(g)	two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103b (schedule D), of the said supplementary estimates (B), $250,333.34;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, once again this committee is being asked to vote a sum, in round figures, of $740 million.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The cry "filibuster" is being made already today; the same old cry by the same old gang. Last Easter we were being asked to pass a similar amount, roughly $700 million,

Interim. Supply
without debate. As you realize, we missed our usual Easter recess because of that cry "filibuster".
The people of Canada have the right to know why we are spending this large sum of money. The people of Canada, through the press, have complained that we here are not doing our duty as members of parliament. I can assure you that we are going to do our duty in this regard. We are going to consider this vast sum of money with great care. We are going to scrutinize the workings of all the departments concerned, and briefly consider the record of what the government has done during this longest and most tiresome session of parliament since 1867.
I am one of the first to admit that the legislative program during this long and arduous session has not been impressive, because the Liberals have failed to give us that leadership of which they boasted during the last two election campaigns.
The Liberals said they had the answers to our problems and would show us how to run this country if elected. Do they have the answers to the problems facing agriculture? The Conservative party when in power had the best minister of agriculture that Canada has ever had. He was the man who sold a billion bushels of grain at a favourable price, putting at least western Canada on its feet. I have very good authority for making that statement. I refer to the present Minister of Agriculture who had this to say at Falher, Alberta, as reported in the Toronto Star of October 30, 1964:
"I think the last Liberal government had forgotten the farmers during its declining years," he said. 'Til even go further-I think that on the basis of its record with our farmers, the last Liberal government deserved to be kicked out when it was."
He said the present government has continued the agricultural policies started by the Conservatives and expanded them.
I only wish they had. After the tremendous criticism of our sales of wheat to red China and other communist countries, the Liberals in fact continued to sell to these countries; but they claimed that our administration had had nothing to do with bringing about those sales and that they were the result of the efforts of civil servants and the wheat board. Now that they are selling grain to the same countries they say they did it all, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be the first to claim that he had had a great deal to do in this regard. It is a sad state of affairs when the present Minister of Agriculture can 
only say that it was a good idea to put his own party out, and that the only contribution he has made to Canadian agriculture has been to continue our policies. Again I say I wish he had.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the hon. member-


The Chairman:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Harry William Hays: I am rising on a question of privilege. It is quite all right for the hon. member to quote me, but I think he should give the whole quotation where I said that "1964 is drawing to a close and it now seems"-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Lambert:: Make your own speech.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. That is not a question of privilege.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I will be delighted to accommodate the minister. After saying that his government had continued the agricultural policies started by the Conservatives, and had expanded on them he went on to say:
We have tried to show the same kind of concern for our farmers under the present government as was shown by the previous government. I won't take anything away from them on that score. They did things for our farmers that should have been done long before. My only objection is that they only went half as far as they should have.
That is a very good point. I will be the first to admit that we did not solve all the problems of agriculture, nor did we ever pretend to; but we made such a tremendous change that even the present Minister of Agriculture has to admit that the previous Liberal administration was completely derelict in this regard. I can speak with some authority for the people of western Canada because that is where I have lived all my life, and my constituency of Athabasca is in the northeastern part of Alberta. I can say on their behalf that there has been very little comfort in the new, expanded policy of the Liberal government. What has happened to the price of beef? What has happened to the price of pigs-


Eric Alfred Winkler: And fowl.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -and to the price of turkeys? Not long ago the minister said he had stabilized the price of turkeys by importing some eight million pounds of turkeys from the United States.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Twelve million now.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: He stabilized the price, but where did he stabilize it? At a level which has hurt not only Canadian producers of turkeys but has affected the prices of beef and pork as well. Nothing the previous administration ever did could have given the minister the idea that the way to stabilize prices was to import turkeys from the United States and lower the price so the small turkey farmer can no longer make a living. If that is the kind of action he is going to take, and this is why I rose to speak, then it is time not only he resigned but the whole government, and handed back the reins of office, especially in the agricultural field, to those who knew what they were doing.
This is not the only field in which we are lacking leadership today. On the government front benches we have a whole crowd of confused stars. Where are we going with regard to international policy? No statements are made in the House of Commons to enlighten us, but from everything I have been able to read in the press it would appear that the government is in favour of recognizing red China completely. Is this going to maintain our friendship with the United States, which alone preserves the safety of our modern world? Before we go off half cocked with a unilateral plan I think we should discuss the plan with our neighbours to the south. My position in this regard is not new. I have always favoured full co-operation with the United States, with honour.
This administration did not know where it was going with regard to atomic bombs or atomic missiles. It is not so long ago that the Minister of National Health and Welfare said it would be the sheerest folly to bring atomic weapons into Canada and the Minister of National Defence, of all people, agreed with that statement. Then the government changed around and brought in atomic weapons without any regard whatever for Canadian sovereignty. Now we have them on Canadian soil and we have no sovereignty in this regard. I understand we are now going to try to negotiate out of atomic weapons. This is a fine time to take such action. As we would say on the farm, this is like locking the barn door after the horse has escaped. We are all looking for more leadership in international affairs.
When the present Prime Minister took office he had won the Nobel peace prize. He knew how to get along with people. He knew how to get all the nations of the world
Interim Supply
together. But what does he know about getting Canada back together again? One hundred years ago the president of the United States was Abraham Lincoln, who is famous in history as the man who split rails. If we go on the way we are we will have a prime minister who will be famous for splitting Canada, and I for one want no part of it.
We are patting ourselves on the back now that we are becoming a great big grown up nation and are going to repatriate the British North America Act. How is that going to make us a greater nation? I am not against repatriating the British North America Act. As a matter of fact the British North America Act was drafted in Canada and passed by the British House of Commons at Westminster in one of the shortest debates in its history. We drafted the British North America Act, and if there is anything wrong it is because we have not lived up to it.
We need a strong federal government in Canada. Our problems are great. There is great inequality in the wealth of the provinces. Are the provinces going to opt out of all the things that are of benefit to them? I do not think so. I think it would be a retrograde step to introduce this new formula which says that two, three or any number short of all the provinces can change the basic structure of the British North America Act. If the provinces will examine the British North America Act they will recognize that it is a great charter of freedom.
Without the co-operation envisaged by the Fathers of Confederation, the founders of our country, we would have no country called Canada. We would have been absorbed by the United States at least half a century ago, probably at the time of Laurier and the free trade experiment. The reciprocity experiment did not work and we wisely threw it out. Since that time Canada has gone steadily forward. But Canada has not gone forward at times when the provinces have been selfish. Canada has gone forward when the provinces have seen themselves as integral parts of a great state, one state, one country, but a country in which minorities will always be protected.
Whenever the present government want to make a point they try to pretend that the Conservatives are the great imperialists and that we have tried to keep Canada in her diapers. I do not think so. It was a great Conservative who drew up the British North America Act in the first place in co-operation with his Conservative partner from Quebec,

Interim Supply
Cartier, a man equal in every way to Macdonald in vision, loyalty and integrity. Macdonald and Cartier would turn over in their graves today if, after 97 years of co-operation, they saw the Liberals proceeding as rapidly as they can to undo all they did and dreamed of. A formula for amendment, indeed. If the British North America Act were lived up to by the provinces and the federal government it could still be a complete formula for freedom for all people who live in Canada.
We will be glad to have the British North America Act back in Canada, because we are in fact a grown-up nation, and have been for 50 years. Great political hay was made out of this cry that the Conservatives were imperialists, and William Lyon Mackenzie King won an election back in 1926 on the phony issue that we were being dictated to by Westminster. In 1867, when the B.N.A. Act was passed, Macdonald and Cartier and all those who went over there were annoyed by the fact that the British parliament passed the B.N.A. Act without debate. They thought it was a slur upon Canada that it was not important enough to worry about whether or not we took our complete independence. As a matter of fact Mr. Bright, who was famous for championing the underdog in British politics back at that time, even suggested that they cut the strings entirely and turn Canada adrift and let her go completely on her own. Is this imperialism? They gave us everything we asked for, and more, in 1867.
The British parliament bore the full cost of defending us, and it was not until 1914-18 that Canada made that magnificent contribution which showed that she had in fact grown up and appreciated freedom under the British flag such as no other colony or nation has ever enjoyed. I think the greatest freedom has been enjoyed by those same Quebec people. We still have them with us today, and I and all hon. members know that it is a very small but vociferous group in Quebec who believe in separatism. I was very pleased to hear one of our usually loud and outspoken members say he believed that in the British crown we really have the essence of freedom. This I believe.
I think it would be a good idea if we went back to 1925 and 1926 and read again what happened at that time. I think hon. members will all realize that when we took away the prerogative of the crown to call a successor between elections and try and form a government, we lost a very, very important part of our freedom under the parliamentary system. It is possible now for a leader, not know-

ing where he is going himself, to blame the opposition for every move and to threaten parliament with an election.
Everybody knows that the people of Canada have had too many elections. They have had at least two too many, one in 1962 and one in 1963, when a vicious campaign of half truths and complete falsehoods destroyed the confidence of the Canadian people in an administration that in five short years had certainly done more for western agriculture than all the previous Liberal administrations since 1867.
Even this was used in every husting east of Winnipeg to say that western Canada was a spoiled baby. Western Canada only enjoyed what she should have always had, something approaching a fair share of the national income. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the former administration instituted these programs; the ARDA program, for example. I suppose hon. members opposite say this was their program, but it was brought in by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, as everybody knows. This is one of the reasons I said, and I say again, that he was the greatest minister of agriculture Canada has ever had. He is still full of ideas; he is still full of drive; and I know, and you know, that if he were back in that same position he would expand the ARDA program and give the maritime farmers, the small Quebec and Ontario farmers, the same hope that has regenerated agriculture throughout the west.
We hear the present Minister of Agriculture say he has expanded our program. I want to know where. It is no good talking about total farm income; we want to know how much of that income is distributed amongst the smaller farmers who need it the most. This vertical integration, the kind of legislation this government has brought in to back up the large corporation farms, is not putting one dollar in the pockets of the small farmers; and I understand from the bureau of statistics that we are losing 14,000 family farms a year.
How long can this go on; and what kind of a country are we going to have when they are all sitting in the city looking for free wine and corn oil, etc., to be produced on collective farms? The happy, small farm in Canada has always been our strength, and I want to see continued the policy of the former administration under the present Leader of the Opposition and his then minister of agriculture. He introduced the ARDA program into this house. Only under this program can the small farmers, not only in western Canada but also in eastern Canada,

derive any hope; otherwise they will be leaving the farms in even larger numbers than the present rate of 14,000 a year.
I do not think the people of Canada are interested in long winded talks about ideologies, about whether or not you like socialism. They are interested in simple things, such as can they earn a living? They were able to earn a living thanks to our government and to the policies we instituted when in office. We must go to the small farmers in Quebec and give them a chance to live and see they have the amenities of living. An automobile these days is not a luxury; it is a necessity in this country of ours. Also, Mr. Chairman,
I believe that every home in Canada should have television in order that they may participate in this great educational program that we want. That is why I have pressed for greater television coverage. So far I have not been able to get it, but I will keep on pressing for it. I do not care if I never make a name for myself as a statesman, as long as we feed the people who sent me here and improve their standard of living.
If some of our leaders would stop worrying about the history books and would get down to brass tacks, dollars and cents, income security, this country would be a great deal better off. I do not think you have to be a socialist in order to give this country security. This is the richest country in the world by far, as far as capital is concerned, when one considers what we have produced already and the potential that is ours. In my district of Athabasca 500 billion barrels of oil are there for the taking, and what are we doing about it? We started it. We should do something in this respect and get this inertia out of our policies.
We can all now say that Mr. Hees is a great man. Why? It is only because he is not in our party any more. Isn't he the same man? It was not Mr. Hees alone; he was encouraged by a whole front row of people who were on the march.


George James McIlraith: Leaving the party.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: He has not left the party, and the flattering office which you people gave him did not get him into your party either. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I am a great admirer of Mr. Hees. He got this country rolling. How did he get this country rolling? It was because he listened to the backbenchers of his own party. George Hees did not think he had all the answers; he consulted us on many occasions, and if we came to him with a bright
Interim Supply
idea he used it. It was not all window dressing; he put Canadian manufacturers and Canadian products back in the markets of the world.
Then it was said that our minister of finance was a terrible man for the way he dealt with one of the spoiled boys of the party opposite. What did he do? He devalued the dollar and the present Minister of Finance wrote a book about it, "Troubled Canada". I tell the house that Canada is still troubled, and it is troubled because the government has the author of that book as Minister of Finance. The sooner we get him out, the better.
There are those who want to weaken the federal system. What about education? It is said, "Don't talk about education; that is a provincial right". Everything in this country is too hot to handle, but if the government does not handle it somebody else will. And in handling it the government should not play around with socialism.
I warn you people over there that if you continue allowing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to make up your minds for you, he may well end up sitting in the Prime Minister's chair, because he has more intelligence than all of you put together. You have got to do what he says. You brought in a stillborn flag, but when he brought in his flag you all voted for it like a flock of sheep. If he is your leader put him in office and let's get going. If he is the dynamic leader you think, then let's have him over there.
Or why don't you have the hon. member for Villeneuve? He speaks out; he isn't silent, but 80 per cent of you people are silent whenever there is a controversial issue too hot to handle.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: We are keeping our eyes on you.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You had better have your eye on me, because you will hear more from me. Your half truths and your propaganda machine will do me no harm unless you go to the people I represent and show you are doing something to help them earn a living. My people are tired of talk; they want action. Your own Minister of Agriculture admitted we took action, and he knows. He is a farmer; I will say that for Harry. He knows what has happened to the price of cattle since you fellows got in.
My people want something done about the price of farm machinery. You people brought in a bill to fix that, but I defy you to tell me how you have reduced the price of farm

Interim Supply
machinery by one cent for farmers in western Canada or elsewhere. I speak for myself. A lot of you people don't have far to go on week ends and are able to commute to your homes. Maybe that is why you are keeping the session going.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Stop talking and we will go home.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: On September 8 the hon. member for Megantic moved that we stop talking about things which really do not count and get on with important legislation, but every one of you voted against that. You had been accusing us of filibustering, but on September 8 every Liberal in the house voted to continue the flag debate. You really did not want your own flag, or you would not have sent it to the committee. In that committee you had the mother of that flag sitting there. It was supposed to be a non-partisan flag, but of course that is impossible. That is why I for one never wanted the flag to go to a committee. We knew we would end up with the flag proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The members of the committee went in knowing they were going to vote for the flag of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Fourteen to none.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, we understand how that was worked. If you want me to go through it I shall put it on the record. You brought in Hobson's choice, the devil or the deep blue sea. You voted in that plugged committee 9-4 against the red ensign and you thought that was the end of it. I have news for you.


An hon. Member:: Ten to four.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You are good at hair-splitting, but what are you doing about the price of turkeys? We can't eat maple leaves. This is not the place to talk about spiritualism. William Lyon Mackenzie King relied on his crystal ball and his little helper who is now the Minister of Transport, but we need more than that. Give the people action; then they will not be ashamed to pay you $18,000 a year. We raised our own income, didn't we?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: You did not vote against it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If you have anything to say why don't you stand on your feet and say it? Would you like the floor?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I said you did not
vote against it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Against what?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The increase in salaries for members.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No. I think I am worth it. I can't say that you are. I backed policies which raised the price of cattle and stabilized family income on the farms. I am proud of the small part I played, and with the same amount of devotion to the Canadian people I think I could earn $18,000 a year anywhere. I am a lawyer, and I am devoting what small legal brains I have to looking through the holes in your specious arguments. I am an advocate for the people of Athabasca, and they know it. I spend 100 per cent of my time representing them, and I don't care if we have a recess or not. This is my life. I will spend 24 hours a day 12 months of the year here if you will produce some results for my people. But if you don't come up with something dynamic I will be here when you are forgotten.
If you members from Quebec want to be returned from Quebec, then do something for the little people of Quebec. Give them a chance to earn a living and share in the wonderful opportunities we have. No people ever had greater opportunities than those facing the Canadian people today. We are fighting over dimes when we should be having dollars. In some cases little, petty provincial governments are shuffling dimes around when they should be using dollars, and this is due to lack of vision and co-operation. When we have an administration that gets things done we should get behind it and stop telling lies about it. Whenever you people introduce something good I will vote for it. You are in the driver's seat.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: And you are talking.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: In this chamber you are supposed to stand on your feet and make your contribution. You are not helping Canada by heckling me. If you have a contribution to make I am willing to sit down and listen to it.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. gentleman to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, while we are studying interim supply, and after the fashion of various members of the official opposition,
I should like to put on the record a few short quotations which are assuredly relevant to today's debate.

The first quotation is taken from Psalm 115 and reads as follows:
-eyes have they, but they see not;
They have ears, but they hear not:
The other quotation, taken from St. Luke, chapter 23, says this:
-forgive them; for they know not what they do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Amen.


Norman Platt Lambert: So you are innocent.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I am happy at the opportunity to take part in this debate on interim supply.
I know there are some objections to the length of time which has been consumed by this debate, but one of the duties of members of parliament, particularly members of the opposition, is to seek to guide the government along right lines through control of the monetary supply.
I think the members of the government will be ready to agree that across this country today there are a great many worried people. They are worried over the conduct of business in this house-


Mr. Lloyd:: Hear, hear.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: They are worried over the proposed imposition of a flag. They are worried over the conduct and performance of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and they are deeply worried over the proposed formula for amending our Canadian constitution and the effect it is likely to have on Canada in the years ahead.
I should like to deal first with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Back in the thirties the corporation was set up for several purposes, the chief of these being to foster Canadianism through disseminating Canadian news, sports, educational achievements, science, history and whatever else might be going on in Canada which the Canadian people should know and which no outside news media could possibly supply to the Canadian people in the same way a national broadcasting corporation could. Its purpose was to foster national unity. It was concerned only with radio in those first years. Later on, when television took its place alongside the other media of communication, the C.B.C. arranged for the broadcasting of television programs.
Now, no organization other than a government organization could possibly provide the remoter areas of this country with radio and television facilities, particularly the latter. This was one of the fundamental purposes of
Interim Supply
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to provide these facilities in the remoter areas which would not be attractive to private enterprise because there would be no profit in broadcasting to those areas.
Then again, in addition to supplying these facilities to remote areas, another purpose of the corporation was to keep open and active our east-west lines of communication. We in Canada live in five regions spread roughly along the 60th parallel of latitude. These five regions are separated by areas of rock and communication is difficult. This has always been one of the problems of Canada. It has made the construction of railways very expensive. It has made construction of communicating east-west lines very expensive. But these east-west lines of communication are essential to the well-being and continuation of our national existence.
On the whole the C.B.C. has done a very good job of serving Canada. The corporation has produced some very good programs. It has brought into this country some very good programs. Nevertheless, in recent times particularly, the C.B.C. seems to be letting down its standards-I would not like to say of decency, but it is letting down its standards of, shall we say, acceptability. There is no reason why the C.B.C. should become a showcase for pornography, but there has been serious criticism of the content of some recent programs which have been broadcast over our national facilities.
I submit to this committee that nothing should be broadcast which would cause embarrassment in any way in an average well adjusted Canadian home when all its members are sitting around watching television. I submit that freedom of speech and truth should not be used as an excuse for broadcasting subjects and pictures which are ruled out in polite mixed company. In other words, if it is not lowering the standards of decency, the C.B.C. in recent times has been guilty of lowering the standards of acceptability. Acceptability cannot be defined by law; it can only be defined by public usage and by public acceptance. The C.B.C. has violated this law of acceptability.
I should like to read the committee a letter from a lady who lives in the constituency of Middlesex West. The letter is addressed to Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with a copy to myself. It says: Dear Mr. Ouimet,
I have just shut off our television set in disgust and indignation during this evening's program "This Hour Has Seven Days". If you are in any doubt as to the reasons, I suggest you check the

Interim Supply
program content. The freedom its producers allow themselves is no licence for insensible insult. There are still areas of decency.
I protest too the general terms two weeks ago of this same program during the visit of H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth. I do not know whether on that occasion Dr. Laurier LaPierre was reading from a prepared script or airing his personal opinion. In either case I was ashamed as a Canadian citizen that he. over a publicly owned medium, called into question the right of the Queen to be in Canada at all.
I would suggest, sir, that it is past time to withdraw the privilege from the opinionated individuals associated with this program of presenting their private viewpoints along with a number of very low-taste items.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. A.G. McColl,
38 Lonsdale drive, London, Ontario.
I have before me a clipping taken from this morning's Globe and Mail entitled "Professor and cleric defend C.B.C." The article is as follows:
A Unitarian minister and an associate professor of art have spoken in defence of the C.B.C., under fire recently in speeches by members of parliament and in a strongly worded petition signed by women's groups.
George Swinton, associate professor at the University of Manitoba's school of art, said in an interview that overzealous, self-appointed spokesmen for the general public attempting to suppress truth and fact because they do not like them are vicious, irrational and un-Christian.
That is one person's view. I will have some more to say about that later.
,Rev- William P. Jenkins, in a Sunday address to nis congregation at the Unitarian church of Winnipeg, said members of parliament and a group of women were seeking, in the name of morality, to enforce a rigid censorship of Canada's most popular and penetrating medium of communication.
The defenders referred to the declaration of Canadian women, a petition circulated among women's and church groups and carried door to door in some communities, and to members of parliament's criticism of the network for an interview with George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American nazi party.
The women's petition said its signers aim "to end the domination of a minority who misuse the C.B.C. to spread propaganda for perversion, pornography, free love, blasphemy, dope, violence and crime".
Mr. Swinton said groups that accuse the C.B.C. of contributing to juvenile delinquency, alcoholism and immorality have not the slightest idea what morality really is.
It is the duty of the C.B.C. to show the truth and things that really exist, even though they may be unpleasant, he said. "Bigots are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. They think if they don't look at something, it doesn't exist.
He said Canadians "should be grateful to the C.B.C. for defending our freedom of opinion and expression".

Mr. Jenkins said a victory for pressure groups against the C.B.C. would mean the end of all free expression on television, a body blow to the cultural growth of Canada and a long step toward totalitarianism.
He said Canada cannot remain free unless the people face and examine the problems of morality.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on the suggestion that it is the duty of the C.B.C. to show the truth and things that really exist. I agree this is true, but I think all of the members of this committee would agree that there are some areas of our lives which are not to be exposed to the public view. People do not exhibit themselves when they take a bath. On nearly every toilet door in the country there is a lock. We do not wash our dirty linen in the living room. Mothers do not change their babies when there is a lot of strange company around. There are certain areas of our lives which are kept private, and it seems to me that this fact should be recognized by the C.B.C.
Surely the C.B.C. know what is acceptable in polite social circles; and surely what is acceptable in polite social circles should be respected by the corporation. Why the Canadian people has to accept some of the tripe, to use that expression, which is put over the C.B.C. networks and which is certainly a cause of embarrassment to many people, I do not know. I cannot understand the attitude of the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in permitting this sort of thing to continue. I think that one incident where, according to accepted standards, an improper and indecent program is broadcast by the C.B.C. is sufficient for the severest disciplinary measures to be taken against the producers of such programs. I do not know where we can start except at the top of the C.B.C., not at the bottom. Mr. Ouimet himself should be held responsible for what is broadcast on the C.B.C. networks. The producers all the way down to the bottom of the ladder should have a thorough understanding that this far out type of program, which may be acceptable to a very small minority of Canadians, is found to be objectionable and embarrassing by the average viewer of television. I say that the C.B.C. should know better than to broadcast this type of program, and everyone in the organization should understand that.
Now I come back to a clipping taken from the London Free Press for January 6, 1961, which illustrates the sort of thing to which I am referring. This is a Canadian Press report which is as follows:

Arch Oboler, controversial movie producer-director-writer, is making a film in Toronto about the Kinsey report and is using Canadian actors.
Leo G. Carroll, veteran Hollywood actor best known for the Topper series, will play the lead and will be supported by Canadians Kate Reid, Austin Willis, Sharon Acker, Toby Tarnow, Garrick Hagon and Maud Whitmore. Scenes are being shot at the grounds of the Canadian national exhibition, Malton airport and in Toronto streets and at a church.
The plot takes the form of a symposium on the famed report, chaired by Carroll. The title of the film is "One Plus Two".
Calling Canadian actors and technicians "nothing but wonderful," Oboler refused to divulge the cost of the movie but said that the film should take about five weeks to shoot.
Said Oboler: "I've written something like 700 plays, but this is the one dearest to my heart."
If ever there was a subject that was not fit for showing in the living rooms of homes in Canada it is the Kinsey report, yet we have producers who think that this sort of thing is good for public showing. I should like to stress again the point that there is an element in the C.B.C. that is going too far. It is going beyond the point of acceptability by the Canadian public.
The former government was unable to rectify this situation and the present government seems unable to take care of it. Certainly something should be done. I think when we are considering granting the government further interim supply, during which time we have the right to raise grievances and demand recourse, is a suitable time to impress upon the government the fact that this sort of broadcasting and programming must be stopped.
I should like to read a short excerpt from a speech made by Mr. Alphonse Ouimet to the Toronto Rotary club on November 25, 1960. Mr. Ouimet stated:
I wouldn't be surprised if every person in this room who follows C.B.C. programs is mad at the C.B.C. for something they saw or heard yesterday, or will be mad at us for something they will see or hear tomorrow or the next day. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that there is much that is not to my particular taste either, but I believe in freedom of taste.
Perhaps we all believe in freedom of taste, but within reason. We do not believe in unrestricted freedom of taste. If we followed that reasoning where would it lead us? It would lead us to the fringe of lunacy, indecency, immorality and everything that accompanies those things. Let us believe in freedom of taste, yes, but within reason. The C.B.C. has exceeded the limits of reason by some of its recent programs.
Interim Supply
Mr. Ouimet then went on to say:
I don't want to labour this point. Canada, thank goodness, is not made up of 18,000,000 sheep, and we all know it.
Despite their differences of opinion, and their differences in taste, most Canadians, when they see a program they dislike, are fair enough to remember the number of programs they did enjoy. They probably also remember that the other fellow may have other preferences in programs-and that he, too, is a shareholder in the C.B.C.
Broadcasting-the kind of broadcasting we have in Canada with C.B.C.-has something for everyone.
Again we have this suggestion that there is something for everyone and freedom of taste. This freedom should not go beyond the point of reason and acceptability, but the C.B.C. has gone beyond that point.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need say anything further in this regard. I hope I have made my point clear and that the government will do something about this situation. There is a problem in this regard, but surely if the present management of the C.B.C. does not understand the standards of acceptability in Canada today, changes should be made in that management.
At this time I should like to make a few comments in connection with the proposed formula for amending our Canadian constitution. The suggested formula has caused grave doubt in the minds of many Canadians. I think we all believe that the repatriation of the Canadian constitution, providing for its amendment in Canada without having to refer it to the government of Great Britain, is desirable. However we do not want to weaken our nation because of our anxiety to repatriate our constitution. It is better to leave things alone than to damage our national unity. It is better to leave things alone than to prejudice our future well-being as a nation.
In 1867 two levels of government were established, a national or federal level, and a provincial level. The powers of each were clearly outlined. Under sections 91 and 92 the powers of the federal government and the provincial governments were clearly stated. The language aspect of the situation was covered by section 133. This is not a long section, and for the sake of those people who may read Hansard I think it would do no harm to put it again on the record.
Section 133 of the British North America Act, which deals with languages, reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of parliament of Canada and of the houses

Interim Supply
of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both languages.
That is the way the language problem was settled back in 1867, and this solution has served Canada for 97 years, and has been the basis for the use of languages in this country. The problem of representation in parliament was dealt with in sections 51, 52 and others, and the admission of new provinces was dealt with in section 46. The Fathers of Confederation made a long and careful study and gave lengthy consideration to the drawing up of this act, and it has been found to be a good act.
I should like to quote from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of October 30, 1964. It is headed "Present Constitution O.K." and reads in part as follows:
One of the crowning glories of confederation and of the foresight of the founding fathers has been the fact that the structure which they built has withstood these changes without being altered in any fundamental way.
The second paragraph of the editorial goes on to say:
No convincing case has been made in Quebec or elsewhere for any basic changes in the constitution. On the contrary, there is every evidence that the B.N.A. Act, a superbly flexible and adaptable document, is as capable of meeting the nation's needs today as it was in 1887. Even Premier Lesage of Quebec has conceded this.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member that unfortunately his time has expired, unless he has unanimous agreement of the committee to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: I regret there is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Chairman, in listening to hon. members on the other side who have spoken this afternoon I had occasion to look up the word "filibuster" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. It is defined here as an "obstructionist in legislative assembly". I want to spend a few moments of the committee's time to suggest to the committee that what we have been hearing again his afternoon is a continuation of what has been an obstructionist technique in this legislative assembly, the House of Commons.


Mr. Rapp:: The same as you did in 1963.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
ask a question?


John Napier Turner: Certainly.


Hugh John Flemming: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is in substantial agreement with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Middlesex West?


John Napier Turner: In answer to the hon. member's question may I say that whether or not I am in agreement with what was said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat is irrelevant because I want to suggest to the hon. member that what we have been hearing during the last seven days, and I say this with the greatest respect to him, has been irrelevant and I do not want to compound that irrelevancy by getting into that type of argument this afternoon. May I say that the subject matters that have been discussed on interim supply have been noted for the fact that they have not really constituted a proper discussion of interim supply at all. Members have been talking about patriation of the constitution and the amendment of the British North America Act, when this measure will be brought before the House of Commons in due course and will open up at that time an opportunity for relevant and appropriate discussion. Members have been talking about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, when the estimates of the Secretary of State have not yet been brought before the house but will be brought forward in due course. There has also been discussion about the flag, when this matter is on the order paper already and should therefore not be a proper subject for debate on interim supply. Indeed it is the object of a report by a committee of the house, which report is before the house.
I should like to cite to the committee a few figures. Out of the 182 days that this house has been sitting this session, 76 have been taken up with estimates and supply. Yet the estimates of only eight out of 23 government departments have been passed. We are now on the 26th day of debate on interim supply during this session whereas in the nine previous sessions of the House of Commons interim supply took only 22 days.


Mr. Kindi:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? When he is speaking would he mind addressing the members of the house and not the press gallery?


John Napier Turner: 
Norman Platt Lambert: You are wrong.


John Napier Turner: -and only seven days had been allowed for the consideration of estimates.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George who started his remarks by expressing the opinion that perhaps some members who had spoken before him had not been entirely relevant to the subject matter of the resolution. I am in accord with him to some extent but I do not think that, as the Speaker says, two wrongs make a right and I would hesitate to recognize that he is in order when he discusses past proceedings of the house under the guise of suggesting that perhaps some of the contributions to the debate have been irrelevant. It may be that what he is saying now is by way of preface to other remarks, and if that be so perhaps he could get to the subject matter and essence of his speech.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Talk about the water levels on the great lakes.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, in response to your suggestion I should like to talk about interim supply, because the time spent in debate in this house involves the taxpayers' money-


Norman Platt Lambert: How would you know? You are never here.


John Napier Turner: -and within that scope I would hope Your Honour would find me relevant. With regard to interim supply, the first interim supply debate took two days, the second interim supply debate took one day, the third interim supply debate took seven days, the fourth took nine days and the fifth has taken seven days up until today for a total of 26 days. All I want to suggest to Your Honour is that the proposed flag resolution appeared in Votes and Proceedings on May 26, 1964, between the second and third interim supply debates, which may explain these figures better than any further words of mine.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to participate in the debate this afternoon, but since the parliamentary secretary to
Interim Supply
the Minister of Northern Affairs and Natural Resources (Mr. Turner) apparently wants to lecture us, I feel it is my duty to say a few words.
I object to any attempt by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to muzzle the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, or any other member.
We have rights, and in rising to deal with the remarks and representations made by my constituents, I am only performing my duty. Therefore, even though I have great regard for him and even consider him as a friend, I spurn the lecture that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George tried to give us.
Mr. Chairman, I also have a few remarks to make about the C.B.C.
I feel that this crown corporation is costing the Canadian taxpayers so much money that we should look into it. I feel that we do not get our money's worth from the C.B.C.
Of course, the C.B.C. presents very good programs, but it also presents some that are not so good, and some that are definitely bad. Therefore, I will deal for a while with the unfavourable aspect, even if I have had very little time to prepare the remarks I am going to make-


Mr. Drouin:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What does he mean by the remarks.


Vincent Drouin: What does he mean by the C.B.C.?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be corrected by my hon. friend from Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) when I use an English word instead of a French word, but I think that in doing so I merely follow the example set on several occasions by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) who dealt the other day with "bands." Besides, he used other English words during the remarks he made in French in this house.
Mr. Chairman, I am willing to tolerate a few interjections from the other side of the house, but I must warn you that if those who always remain seated cannot do otherwise than make interjections from their seats, I will have no alternative at a certain time but to reply in kind.
Some t.v. programs are especially shocking; they encourage delinquency and are a danger

Interim Supply
to our youth. Some of those programs are definitely indecent and they should not be shown to our young people.
Other programs also intended for teenagers are equally indecent. Some of them undermine the established authority, whether it be the family, the parish, the province or the country. Other programs present a simply revolting aspect of crime to young people; and in this connection, I would point out the remarks made last year, if my memory serves me well, by the chief of police of Montreal, Mr. Robert, who said that unless steps were taken to cancel certain programs on crime, we would find it very hard to control our young people.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter which was sent to meconcerning the broadcasting of news. One does not need to listen too long to certain news programs to notice that there is partisanship among the C.B.C. staff.
When the time comes to present news unfavourable to a political party-and so that there should be no misunderstanding, I say that I mean the party to which I have the honour of belonging-


Mr. Chretien:: Dubious honour.


Auguste Choquette: Pitiful honour.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I beg your pardon.


Auguste Choquette: I say it is a pitiful honour because I would be ashamed of being a Conservative myself. You can be sure of that. Your party is trying to destroy confederation.


Auguste Choquette: By a parish priest.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Not by a parish priest, but contrary to the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I receive letters from parish priests; perhaps the parish priests of his riding do not trust him enough to write him.


Auguste Choquette: I receive letters from
bishops.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I often receive letters from parish priests, but this letter is from a citizen of Varennes. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Ricard:
Even though I am a Liberal, I sympathize with Mr. Balcer with regard to the destruction of his car. As I have written to many members and ministers for years, the cause of these acts of violence and gangsterism, of this flippant attitude on the part of young people is the t.v. films-
Mr. Chairman, you have a family, as I have, and you know by personal experience that a picture has a very important and far-reaching influence, especially on youth.
Therefore, it is important that films shown on our t.v. screens are not detrimental to our youth. I think it is our duty, as representatives of the people, to watch over the protection of our families.
I am certain the minister is anxious to give all his consideration to that question and that he will revise, if that is possible, the answer he gives to questions directed to him: "I have no authority whatsoever on programs shown by the C.B.C."
Decency as well as the moral well-being of our children require that the minister do his utmost to ensure that our youth will not be corrupted.
Going on to another matter, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the house that the C.B.C. is not as careful as it should be


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In the mouth of the hon. member, the word "shame" is meaningless because he himself is a shame for the house. If I had a piece of advice to give him, I would suggest that he keep quiet; he would at least be showing some respect for his constituents.


Auguste Choquette: After the next election, you will be quiet because you will be nothing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I was saying, in spite of the remarks and ill-timed and perhaps naughty interjections of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) -


Auguste Choquette: I merely laughed, Mr. Chairman.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I was saying that the C.B.C. did not always give a true report of facts.
You have heard those Liberal members, Mr. Chairman, they are not allowed to speak.
Liberal members are allowed to make noises and interjections in this house but they are not allowed to rise in their seats to give their personal opinions.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not make any noise in the house, I only laugh at the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot who is utterly ridiculous.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This, Mr. Chairman, will not prevent me from continuing with my remarks-


John Napier Turner: What a pity.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I did not think the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George could stoop to the level of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I am quite amazed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I ask hon. members to come back to their senses and allow the hon. member who has the floor to pursue his comments without being interrupted?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Liberal members have to be called to order, in view of the unwarranted interruptions and interventions they keep on making when a Conservative member has the floor.


Lucien Lamoureux: I have to tell the hon. member that I must also call him to order and ask him to co-operate with the Chair by limiting his remarks to the resolution now before the committee.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I have been doing all along, and if I was forced to digress it is due to the lack of seriousness of the members opposite.
The C.B.C. costs the Canadian citizens $86 million per year. It seems to me that it would be fair and advisable for this corporation to spend more cautiously the funds that are being provided to it by the Canadian taxpayers and workers.
I believe, I do not only believe but I am sure, that many expenditures are incurred inconsiderately.
Money is no object to the C.B.C., especially in regard to television. The responsible people in that corporation incur any expenditure that comes to mind. It is true that in so doing, they only follow the example set by the government itself; last spring, when the C.B.C. president's annual salary was increased from $20,000 to $40,000 it could have been increased by an additional $10,000, as was stated before us by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne).
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, we do not have to go any farther to find an example. The C.B.C. is criticized for its inconsiderate spending, but the example is set at a higher level, that is by the very people who direct the business of this country.
I would therefore-


Mr. Guay:: Demagogy.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Nov/, the hon. member for Levis believes he should also interject, for, as may be seen, he is not allowed either to speak in the house.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I would not want to speak like you; I would rather remain silent.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, this is another proof that the Liberal members on the opposite side of the house can do nothing but interject.
Interim Supply


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: You are acting as demagogues, and this is not any better.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, it is therefore
important that a thorough inquiry be made into the C.B.C., in order to introduce sound financing in its management. I am convinced that the C.B.C. could, and with a lot less money, give better programs, oiler high quality programs that would promote culture and information.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the Prime Minister should launch an investigation into this matter.
It is no secret that the C.B.C. harbours a core of separatists who are a real danger to our society. If the members on the opposite side of the house had the courage to deal with this matter, if they had the courage to state publicly what they think in the bottom of their hearts, they would corroborate what I am saying at this moment. This is also another area which the minister should investigate in order to bring about the remedies required.
Furthermore, there exists an extraordinary-patronage within the C.B.C. Unless he knows certain officials in the C.B.C., it is impossible for the ordinary citizen to obtain a position or do business with that corporation. You cannot do anything or get anything if you do not have the ear of the person responsible for patronage within that crown corporation.
That works against the people in general and should not be tolerated in a country like ours. The minister should stop saying he can do nothing in that respect. The Secretary of State should take into consideration the grievances and recommendations made by his colleague from York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) and give closer attention to the steps which should be taken to correct that situation.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Certainly.


Vincent Drouin: Could he give us the name of the person responsible for patronage within the C.B.C. so that the minister who answers to the house for the corporation may take the necessary steps and put an end to the situation mentioned by the hon. member?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, that will not be necessary since the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes knows him even better than I do.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Let us hear you give his name.

Interim Supply


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I am delighted, Mr. Chairman, to have the opportunity of participating in this supply debate, particularly since the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is in his seat in the chamber. This afternoon I should like to talk about Indians because I happen to have five reserves in my area, and I consider the Blood Indian reserve, being so close to it, as one of the five reserves. At least the Indians from it come over to Fort Macleod and we see a lot of them.
These Indians entered into a solemn obligation with the Queen and the federal government in 1877 at Blackfoot Crossing south of Cluny in Alberta. Over five or six thousand Indians were present, and Colonel Macleod, the head official of the federal government, attended the drafting of treaty No. 7 and the signing of it. This particular treaty may not mean a great deal to present day officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I would say to them that as far as the Indians are concerned, there is nothing more sacred than the obligations they undertook at that time and there is nothing more solemn than the promises which Her Majesty's representatives made on that occasion. They sealed them by saying that as long as the rivers flow and the sun shines these obligations of the federal government would be carried out. I would remind the committee that this treaty was not made between the Indians and any minor government-any local government, or provincial government. It was made between Her Majesty's representatives and representatives of those nations which were ceding certain territory. The Indians agreed to this treaty. It took them seven days to do so. And anyone who reads treaty No. 7 can see the rights which were given on that occasion to these Indians and the benefits which the government of Canada received. To have called such a meeting as the minister of citizenship had in mind without first consulting the Indians on matters which pertain to them is entirely wrong-wrong in principle and wrong in practice. These Indians feel affronted by this type of procedure.
Under this treaty-and I have a copy of it here in my hand-the federal government promises to set up reserves. Reserves are named for the Blackfoot, Blood and Sarcee bands. A reserve is named for the Peigan band of Indians. It was to be on the Old Man river near the foot of the Porcupine hills at a place called Crow's Creek. The reserve of the Stoney band of Indians was to be in the vicinity of Morleyville. They gave $25 to

every man, woman and child in order to have the treaty signed on the occasion when they all met at Blackfoot Crossing south of Cluny in September, 1877. Our representatives on that occasion gave these Indians a solemn assurance that they would pay the salaries of all such teachers to instruct the children of the Indians as Her Majesty of Canada might deem advisable, when such Indians were settled on the reserves and should desire teachers. Well, the present government is doing that. We are providing teachers. But whenever there is any change in the treaty rights which the Indians enjoy, the Indians deserve, and indeed, as citizens of this country they are entitled to expect, that whatever government is in power in Ottawa, there should first be consultation with those who are primarily affected. First of all, the Indians should be consulted. Then the administration should obey the treaty obligations which the federal government undertook.
This treaty No. 7, I would say, was one of the worst real estate swindles I ever read in my life. What did they receive in return for ceding that entire territory? In addition to having certain reserves set aside they were to receive, the treaty says-and I shall read the committee some of the terms:
Her Majesty agrees to supply each head and minor chief, for the use of their bands, ten axes, five handsaws, five augers, one grindstone, and the necessary files and whetstones.
Well, a whetstone might have been a very valuable piece of equipment to an Indian. At the same time there is not much monetary value attached to any of these things which were given to the Indians as part of a settlement. Later, the treaty promises to give to the Indians, if they wished to go into agriculture, "two hoes, one spade, one scythe and two hay forks." Every three families were to receive one plow and one harrow, and for each band

-enough potatoes, barley, oats and wheat (if such seeds be suited for the locality of their reserves) to plant the land actually broken up. All the aforesaid articles to be given, once for all, for the encouragement of the practice of agriculture among the Indians.
As some spokesmen for the Peigans have said to me when I last visited them-and I have a great deal of contact with these Indians-it was a case of a bunch of sharp lawyers talking to a bunch of savages. That, undoubtedly, is a fair summary of what happened. In the event, Crowfoot signed this treaty and the Indians felt that in signing it they had done the right thing. They did get their reserves and they do enjoy certain rights

and privileges. One of them is that before anything in the treaty is changed the federal government must go back to the Indians and discuss the proposed change with them. It is necessary to get the consent of the people who are most concerned, and discuss the matter with them before discussing it with anybody else. This is only fair in view of the solemn undertaking into which Her Majesty entered by virtue of the agreement with these Indians.
Those who were privileged to attend the ceremony which marked the signing of this treaty back in 1877 at Blackfoot Crossing remembered it as one of the most solemn occasions in the history of western Canada. As a token of respect, Crowfoot and some of the other chiefs were brought east where they were wined and dined by the federal government. They were taken to government house. They were sent down to Montreal and Toronto and were taken around various places, and then returned to their respective reserves in southern Alberta.
My purpose in recounting this visit is because other events took place. Even if it is at the ministerial level, the idea of the federal government is to make changes affecting the Indians. The government wants the provincial governments to make these changes. But let us not fool ourselves: the Indians are a proud people. They entered into obligations, laid down their arms, and so on, as a result of solemn pledges made by the federal government. In speaking on their behalf here today I feel I am only doing what should be done and raising matters which should be understood by the minister and his staff in their relations with the Indians.
Before I close there are some other items I should like briefly to mention. I do not think I need spend any time on the flag question, except to say that some of the things I do read disturb me. They leave one with the feeling that whoever is spreading the propaganda concerning the flag might be a little more considerate of the truth, instead of creating a wrong impression of what is taking place and may yet take place in the days ahead. If the flag issue is buried, as it should be, nothing will be done and no one will be harmed. If it had not been for the Conservative party we would have today a three maple leaf flag flying throughout the country. Even the committee has indicated-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please; would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Macleod but I have listened to him with great interest until now. I feel that all hon. members, in-
Interim Supply
eluding the hon. member who now has the floor, should exercise great restraint and caution when discussing the question of the flag issue. To my mind this is a matter which should not be discussed in the present proceedings because it has nothing to do with any of the items before the committee. If I may refer to standing order 39(2), it is there stated that discussion in committee should be strictly relevant to the matter before the committee. Therefore I humbly and earnestly suggest to the hon. member that discussion might be left to some other occasion.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, every other hon. member who has taken part in this debate has talked about this matter and I ask for the same privilege. That is item No. 1.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not know which other hon. members have discussed the flag issue, but certainly that is the position which the Chair must take as regards the hon. member who has the floor at the moment, namely that that subject is not relevant to the resolution before the committee at this time.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Well, Mr. Chairman, I register an objection to your ruling and just let it go at that. As far as I am concerned I have plenty of subjects to talk about. However since payment for the flag committee comes out of the revenue which we are being asked to pass, I think I have a legal right, as has every hon. member, to talk about any subject pertaining to it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member seems to contradict what he said a moment ago when he recognized that he was prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair. If he does, then I would ask him to pass on to another subject.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I think I am being denied my rights as a member and should have the same privilege as all other hon. members who have spoken on this matter. Why did the Chair not make a ruling at the beginning? Mr. Turner on the other side spoke for ten to 20 minutes on the flag.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think the
record will bear out the fact that I spoke for no more than five minutes. I would also ask the hon. member to follow the rules of the house and to refer to my constituency.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I apologize but I could not remember his constituency. Which is it?

Interim Supply


John Napier Turner: St. Lawrence-St. George.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Thank you. Now, turning to some of the other issues raised in the press, it seems there is a general impression that people from the west are opposed to this, that and the other. As a matter of fact, I have a press cutting before me headed "Anti-Dief line-up grows". I should like to tell all hon. members that here is one representative from western Canada who is 100 per cent behind the Leader of the Opposition. There is no question but that the Grits, the Liberals, would like to get rid of him more than any other man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: They say "Oh, no", but the very fact they say that means "Oh, yes".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Moreau:: Heaven forbid.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: In connection with this feeling of the people, let me say I am going to speak at a meeting of the Legion next week at Barons, and the Legion there covers members over the whole area of southern Alberta. It will be a good meeting and there will be in no respect whatever any friendly talk about the present Prime Minister, his program on the flag and other matters.
Since I am prevented from raising some of the matters I had in mind I shall close my remarks by saying to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that I would hope he would come out to my constituency and meet the five or six thousand Indians who live there, and also give them an opportunity to meet him, either in Calgary or Fort Macleod, or some such spot. If he did that he would learn from them what their views are regarding their treaty rights. I will go one step further and suggest that he should make an honest effort to reread these treaties and to put down in writing his interpretation of what they mean to the Indians. The officials of his department are not aware of these rights. I received a letter some time ago, and in order to answer that letter I purposely worded a request for information to the department in such a way that to answer they would have to read treaty No. 7. I did receive an appropriate answer from the department, so I know that at least one official read treaty No. 7. We are making a little progress.
I hope the minister, for the sake of his relationships with the Indians, will give them what they deserve and what Canada as a 
nation has promised to give them. Let me repeat, so long as the sun shines and the rivers flow the rights given under these treaties should be respected, and they must be respected, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Macleod permit a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Yes.


Hubert Badanai: Is he aware of the fact that the minister made a statement recently in this house to the effect that the Indian bands would be consulted before any changes in the services provided to Indian communities are made? In view of that statement, no change will be made without consultation.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I am aware of that statement, but why did the department not call the Indians together and ask them whether they want these changes? I think the department is going at it in the wrong direction. You are ignoring the rights and insulting the Indians.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, in order to give a breather to the Conservatives who continue their marathon, and to give them a chance to charge their batteries, because it seems they intend to continue the same marathon until Friday, I will make a few remarks with respect to the doings of some people within the C.B.C. The C.B.C. was mentioned this afternoon; it is a crown corporation whose yearly deficit of $80 million has to be paid by the Canadian taxpayers, and when we ask questions of the Secretary of State about it, it is practically impossible to get any information. We always get the answer: "the C.B.C. is a crown corporation which does not have to reveal such and such information", so that it is very difficult to get any information.
A while ago I heard the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot use rather strong language in connection with the C.B.C. when he told us that there is partisanship within that corporation and that it harbours separatists.
However, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot forgot to tell us that when his party was in office, there was also partisanship in the C.B.C. and that it is perhaps at that time that separatism started within the C.B.C. because at the time when his government was in office, there were one million unemployed in Canada, the greatest number of them in the province of Quebec.

Maybe that is one of the reasons why there are within the C.B.C. people in favour of separatism.
Are they to be blamed, or should we not rather blame those who tolerated an economic system which produced poverty in the midst of plenty for six years, while we had one million unemployed in Canada in 1962-63?
Mr. Chairman, there are shortcomings at the C.B.C., as I said time and again, there is especially a socializing group in this corporation, where parliament is treated in an indifferent, indeed, offhand manner; for those people, a member of parliament or a minister has no importance. But it is noteworthy-and Liberals as well as Conservatives noticed it, and it is not new-that as soon as a socialist from abroad visits this country, the C.B.C. presents interviews with those socialist visitors from France, Belgium, the Soviet union, in short, from any part of the world. Yet, those C.B.C. people refuse to give more or as much importance to what happens here in Canada in our own country.
At noon I mentioned an editorial published in L'Action of yesterday, signed by Mr. Lorenzo Pare. The title is:
In the caldron of Le Devoir's witch.
Mr. Pare says this:
L'Action had published an editorial giving the reasons why, in our opinion, the Queen deserved a nice welcome in Quebec. Local C.B.C. officials-
This is in Quebec city.
-asked us whether we would be prepared to express again the same opinions on the national TV network. Of course, we were. We had to get approval from Montreal, which refused to accept this plea for the Queen on the pretence that the C.B.C. avoided controversial issues.
However, in the same telephone call in which they refused a commentary on the forthcoming visit of the Queen, the C.B.C. offered us, from Montreal, to take part in a televised conference by Mr. Jacques Berque who advocates separatism for Quebec as a preliminary to the triumph, in our province, of the Marxist revolution.
In the opinion of a small C.B.C. Montreal clique the Queen's visit to Quebec was "too controversial an issue": but the separatist and communist revolution was not. The interview with Mr. Berque was taped at the Palais Montcalm, on October 2 last.
Who is this Jacques Berque? He is a bird from France: he has visited us three times in less than two years, and one visit lasted a month. A specialist in "decolonization", he has come to "sell" the French Canadians the Algerian recipe of blood and bombs. He is the one who wrote, between two trips to Montreal, that "Quebec will soon become a gigantic Cuba". He is the high priest whose words one finds, almost literally, in the Parti Pris communist manifesto, and the speaker provided for the students of the University of Montreal-
Interim Supply
-by the Marxist or socialist organization of the province of Quebec.
Does this crown corporation, which exists, thanks to the funds supplied by the French Canadian public as well as the English Canadian public, in short the Canadian people, have the right to act in this manner, to refuse that wholesome discussions be broadcast over its network while such people as this Jacques Berque are invited to appear on its network?
That is the situation. In my opinion the minister is in a position to find those who are responsible for the programs which are presented to the listeners throughout the province, to the televiewers throughout Canada.
A while ago I heard Liberal members say: Why not give us the names of the socialists with the C.B.C.? We are not even capable of finding out who is responsible for the programs in general, for this or that program. It would seem that no one person holds a responsible position within the C.B.C.
You request information from the president of the C.B.C., Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, and he dares to reply to you without even signing the letter. In fact, it is only signed with a rubber stamp.
That is the manner in which the members of parliament requesting information are treated by the C.B.C. officials. And this is why I object to these flagrant abuses.
I mentioned several times the fact that during the national news, at half past ten in the evening, the C.B.C. out of a ten minute period devotes only one and a half minutes, two minutes, two minutes and a half at most to the events taking place in Canada, inside our own boundaries, while we are told about what the socialists and communists of the world are doing.
Why not give more importance to events at home? Why not invite more regularly and more often speakers who are able to inform our Canadian people right here in Canada; in short, why not invite authentic Canadians? But no, they invite people like Mr. Berque, to mention only one.
Not so long ago another individual, a man by the name of Chartrand, of Montreal, spent a month in Cuba. As soon as he returned, he was a guest on the C.B.C.'s press conference program, to inform us that since Castro took over in Cuba the country has become an earthly paradise and all that is missing now over there is American soap and toilet paper. Imagine telling us that on the C.B.C. network.

Interim Supply
Recently the new attorney general of the province of Quebec gave a conference or presided over a meeting of the members of the Montreal chamber of commerce. Mr. Chartrand was there and interrupted the speaker with abusive remarks.
If Mr. Chartrand or any other Canadian did the same thing to Mr. Castro in Cuba when he holds a meeting, he would be shot on the spot before he had time to break or try to break a meeting of the Cuban dictator.
They ought to be logical at the C.B.C., a crown corporation which spends every year $80 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money, instead of broadcasting programs likely to shock the Canadian people and especially the French Canadians.
The French Canadian people are not revolutionaries. They want justice in their country and they want justice from the C.B.C., whose broadcasts should be of such a nature as to inform the public and not to rouse it, as it is the case at the present time.
I have received anonymous letters from Montreal, advising me that the C.B.C. will not invite me any more to press conferences broadcast from its studios. As a matter of fact, it has been more than a year now since I was invited to press conferences by that corporation. It makes no difference to me, for I shall make use of private television in due time. But, here again, it is discrimination.
Who tells the C.B.C. to invite so and so but not to invite somebody else? We have no objection to seeing Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats or Social Crediters invited to press conferences. But we do object to having the C.B.C. commit the most glaring and awful injustice toward the Canadian people.
Not all the staff of the C.B.C. should be held responsible. The ordinary employees are respectable men and women who work hard at their jobs. We have here in the press gallery some model employees. There is Mr. Grenier, Mr. Poliquin, Mr. Baulu, model employees who are keeping Montreal informed on what goes on in this house.
But who, in Montreal, is authorized to cut down the news submitted? Who are the responsible parties? That is what we should like to know. We want to know the people we are paying and we want to know those who are interested in presenting to us the supporters of subversive doctrines in the world. That is what we want to know: the programming authorities, and even those above them. Surely, there are some, but we cannot know their names.
[Mr. Caouette.l
When we put questions to the minister responsible in the house for that corporation, he replies that he will get information. He makes inquiries and the next day, he says: Well, nobody is aware. Thus, they pass the buck. One says it is not his fault and he passes the buck and the next one says: It is not my fault either.
There is no one responsible at C.B.C. and yet, we are sometimes presented with absolutely stupid programs, and that is an understatement. The C.B.C. must be brought back to reason and the government must see to it that the greatest importance is attached to what is going on in that corporation.
The C.B.C. is not "Radio-international," it is not "Radio-France", it is not "Radio-Cuba", it is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The C.B.C. should first of all be concerned with what is going on in Canada and it should inform the Canadian population on that. That is its role and it is for that purpose that this crown corporation was set up.
And let the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at least respect the intelligence of Canadians in all provinces.
As far as French programming is concerned, let them at least respect what is happening in the province of Quebec as well as the intelligence of our people.
The C.B.C. is the organization responsible for the publicity given to terrorism in the province of Quebec.
I agree that there are separatists, that there are people who do not share the views of others; I admit that there are people who want to attain a greater degree of independence and of freedom; but they should resort to honest means and not to bombs and blood, as Mr. Berque wishes. It is not in bloody revolutions that the people find their way. In every bloody revolution, it is the people who suffer and pay with their liberty.
Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. should be the champion of security, of freedom of the press and also of freedom of speech. On the other hand, these freedoms are not one-way freedoms. There are means of holding a dialogue, of reaching an agreement, and also there is always a means of discussing, but the C.B.C. definitely does not allow it.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I had to make regarding the C.B.C. I think that all the political parties in this house are fed up with the actions of certain C.B.C. officials.
That Montreal should dictate the policy of the corporation at Quebec or at Ottawa, we do not agree; with respect to French

programming, this is neither logical nor normal. Let those in Montreal who are unable to assume their responsibilities be removed from the positions they are now holding.
Terrorists and other persons should stop being paid to try and arouse the people or attempt to stir up a revolution. That crown corporation should stop being used to cater to the lower instincts of human nature. On the contrary, it should appeal to people's intelligence and common sense and present educational programs that will raise the intellectual level of the nation instead of lowering and depreciating it.
Mr. Chairman, so far as French programming is concerned, many are afraid to criticize the C.B.C. for fear of some kind of retaliation or to have officials of this crown corporation replaced.
Mr. Chairman, whatever threats some official of the C.B.C. may choose to make, this will never stop me from exposing evil where it exists, from denouncing such communists as may be hiding within the confines of the C.B.C., because it is not those people who are paying for the C.B.C., but the whole Canadian population. Let us assume our responsibilities as members of parliament and let us stop playing politics.
I heard a short while ago the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) blame the Liberals and suggest that they tolerate the doings of the C.B.C. The Conservative party tolerated it the same way during the six years they were in power. Let us not pass the buck but, all together, let us take our responsibilities and make the necessary changes in order that the C.B.C. may reflect a truly Canadian spirit directed towards its destiny.


Mr. Cantelon:: Mr. Chairman, one always listens with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Lapointe, and we did so today. I must confess that his vehemence and his emphasis do not always convince us he is correct. However, I feel that some of the points he made today indeed merit very full consideration. I cannot agree with him, though, when he attributes to the past government the programming mistakes of the C.B.C. today. This seems to me to be carrying the principle of responsible government just a little bit too far. I do not see how any government can be responsible for actions that take place after it is out of office. This indeed is the responsibility he would have us accept.
20220-615J
Interim Supply
I know that during the last few days a great deal has been said about the C.B.C. generally, and in particular about its programming. I should like to add my voice to these comments because the conduct of the C.B.C. undoubtedly affects my constituency much more than it would the constituency of the hon. member for Lapointe or the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am the member for Ville-neuve, for the information of my good friend.


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The C.B.C. is in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St, George.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I did not say these gentlemen were not concerned with the C.B.C.. However, I believe I am still right in my contention because the only television programs available in my constituency are those brought to us by the C.B.C. These are the only programs we are able to see, so I believe I was quite correct.
The C.B.C. is of concern to the Kindersley constituency, particularly because it is one of those unfortunate fringe areas where television coverage is such that it is described by the operators as a class B or class C fringe zone. Those of you who have had experience with this will know it is not too good. As I have said before, the C.B.C. is of concern to my constituency because it is a constituency in which there is nothing but C.B.C. coverage. The private network has no coverage in the area. Obviously, for these reasons, and since we have no alternative, C.B.C. programming concerns us very much.
When we learn that the C.B.C. intends to invest $128 million in developing, expanding or consolidating services in the three major cities of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, we are very much concerned indeed, and I think I ought to say we are not very happy about the situation. No one, I believe, could expect us to feel other than that this is an unfair use of the taxpayers' money. It is the taxpayers' money when we, in parliament, are asked to vote $88 million this year to cover the operating deficit of the C.B.C. In this respect, I should like to quote from the Winnipeg Free Press editorial of August 13 of this year, as follows:
The financial statement of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for 1963-64 shows the continued expansion of the government owned corporation. During the year the C.B.C. received, as a grant from parliament, some $78 million; in advertising revenue, interest, etc., it took in a further $33 million, giving total revenues of $111 million.

Interim Supply
Expenses, however, totalled $115 million, leaving the C.B.C. some $4 million in the hole, over and above the $78 million subsidy it received from parliament.
More alarming to the Commons public accounts committee, however, was the sharp increase in C.B.C. capital costs, particularly those relating to the consolidation of facilities in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.
Those are the facilities to which I just referred.
A year ago the cost of consolidation was given as $83 million. But last month the C.B.C. president told the committee that this figure had been raised to $105 million. Now the annual report raises it again, this time to $128 million.
In other words, up and up it goes and there does not seem to be very much control.
The committee has expressed "grave concern"- and understandably-at the size of these capital outlays. It is particularly concerned at the amount of money being spent in these three eastern cities when there still remain areas of Canada that do not have adequate television facilities. Part of the C.B.C.'s purpose as outlined in the annual report itself is "By using its physical resources to bring the national program service to as many Canadians as finances allow".
Now, I would not want anyone to think that I regret spending this money. I know, and everyone knows, that we cannot have a good C.B.C. operation unless money is spent. In this country in particular where much of the service must be given to rather slimly settled areas, there is no way in which enough money can be garnered to carry the whole load. Generally speaking we feel however that in past years the C.B.C. has been doing a fine job. I think we feel also that in recent years there has been a tendency, first, to forget that all Canadians and not just the heavily populated areas are entitled to satisfactory service and, second, the C.B.C. goes to the homes-I want to emphasize that point-goes to the homes and should regard its programs in a corresponding light.
The hon. member for Calgary North, who was a member of the public accounts committee and so had an opportunity to study the accounts of the C.B.C. at some length, and who is familiar with the Glassco report, had some very pertinent points to make about the C.B.C. and its financing. I think the most important one is the fact that parliament has no practical way of controlling the expenditures of the C.B.C. We might refuse to vote the money asked for, but to me this is an impractical procedure and I feel many others feel this way too.
We suspect that in the operations of the corporation there are areas where the money might be directed to other purposes, and areas

where there are inefficiency and waste. Unfortunately there is no committee specifically charged with the responsiblity of reviewing the C.B.C.'s operations, particularly its financial operations.
True, the government makes much of the fact that it has appointed an advisory committee outside the house to bring in a report and the President of the Privy Council says that a house committee will be set up to study this report. This sounds fine, but it is not what we want. If the government proceeds no faster in this matter than it has in others, we will be discussing the C.B.C. two years from now, and meanwhile the C.B.C. will be spending in its usual, unrestrained way. This is an organization that consistently overspends its budget and it seems to say, "Why not-the deficits are paid by the people." If it were a private corporation, as the hon. member for York-Humber suggests it should be, certainly no deficits would be incurred. However, I would be one of the last to suggest that the corporation be sold to private interests. There are strong reasons why it should not be.
It is my belief that the C.B.C. is primarily an instrument of national policy. It should be a unifying force for the nation and this, with perhaps some exceptions, it has been. It should be its interest to maintain and develop a Canadian culture; and I mean a Canadian culture, not a French Canadian or an English Canadian culture. So far I have not been able to see anything especially remarkable in French Canadian culture which indicates it is worth retaining, in preference to a truly Canadian culture which we might, and indeed should, develop. However if the French Canadian wants to keep it, let him, so long as he does not want to force it down the throats of the rest of us. I am sure this is the way he feels about English Canadian culture. He does not want to be compelled to accept English Canadian culture, and I think most of us are generous enough to concede him the right that we want for ourselves.
Nevertheless, this will never be a nation if we do not develop a truly Canadian way of thinking and unify our two diverse cultures. The C.B.C. is one factor that should assist in the melding of the two cultures. I am not foolish enough to think that this unification will mean similarity. This is most unlikely, but it ought to mean a greater interchange and much more co-operation between the two parts of Canada concerned, and certainly

the C.B.C. has its part to play in that interchange. I doubt if it would play such a part if it were a private business. Indeed, if it were it seems to me we would find U.S. programming and United States events taking a disproportionate amount of the time of the medium. This would lead to even faster and greater Americanization than is occurring. Neither English speaking nor French speaking Canadians care for that. Although we may admire and respect the American way of life I think we prefer our own.
I would like to return again to the principle of one of the comments made by the hon. member for Calgary North as recorded at page 9472 of Hansard for Tuesday, October 27, when he said:
In order to deal effectively with the C.B.C. from year to year there is no question in my mind that we need a standing committee on broadcasting and a committee should be set up immediately to go into the affairs of the corporation forthwith.
There is no question in my mind either that a committee is necessary.
It is quite apparent that the board of directors does not exercise effective financial control. If it did, would it tolerate consistent overspending? Surely no board cares so little for its reputation that it would allow the company it controls to overspend year after year. This in itself is sufficient reason.
Since I have previously pointed out that my constituency is limited to the reception of C.B.C. television programs I would like to ask what is going on? I would also like to emphasize the dissatisfaction which many of my constituents, if not most of them, feel with some of the programs presented. Of course I refer particularly to the far out plays-I suppose the C.B.C. would call them artistic dramas, the sort of thing which we have been subjected to this last two years.
At once I would like to make the point that the C.B.C. is not a theatre in the accepted meaning of the term. A theatre does not have the entree to the living room of the home. No indeed, people who go to a theatre are spending the night out, if I may put it that way. They are adults, the majority of them, with fully formed characters not likely to be influenced by the licence and immorality, and the preoccupation with sins of the flesh which a good proportion of recent C.B.C. plays has shown.
People who go to the theatre choose to do so. But the t.v. sets in my constituency must be turned off if people in their homes do not want to watch the play shown. Indeed
Interim Supply
parents may do this, but parents cannot always be in the home when such plays are shown, and the t.v. set may be running whether they want it or not. Tens of thousands of Canadians have this reaction, and the best article to state their view that I have come across is one written by Patricia Young in the July 30 edition of Our Sunday Visitor, which is the most widely read Roman Catholic weekly on this continent. I quote from the article as follows:
Recently, a prominent C.B.C. official, Mario Prizek, in defending some of the television fare that has been coming our way these days, is quoted as saying: "If you don't get some angry reaction from the public, what you're doing doesn't matter to them." I've got news for Mr. Prizek and others of his ilk who seem to have made it their cultural duty to fritter away our hard earned Canadian tax dollars "getting angry reaction." In 1951, when the findings of the Massey commission on broadcasting were made public, the broad objectives of the national system of this public corporation were given as being "to maintain a flow of information and ideas throughout the country." Information, Mr. Prizek, ideas-not a constant assault on character, patriotism and our accepted moral standards.
Of course, some perverted viewers may have an unhealthy preoccupation with homosexual prostitution, pornography and sadism, but the subjects hardly rate the morbid attention, time and money being spent on them. Take a look at a sampling of the "art and culture" being offered to us by the men who have been hired to spend our tax dollars for us. There was "Two Soldiers," a drama in the Quest series, which depicted two servicemen returning from the army. Not only were they devoid of patriotism, but mouthed the typical ban-the-bomb line and had become homosexually involved (because of their army service?) Oh yes, the public reacted angrily and the Saskatchewan command of the Canadian Legion passed a resolution strongly condemning it.
You can bet your life we're angry, Mr. Prizek- and justifiably so. Remember "A Second Look" on February 9th, which featured Ralph Ginsburg of New York, publisher of Eros and other pornographic magazines, who was allowed to defend his case on this public corporation of ours despite the fact that he'd just been convicted on 28 counts, sentenced to five years in jail and fined $28,900 for peddling his filth? Obviously, he was happy enough to come across the border and state his case. After all, there was all that taxpayers' money waiting to be spent in the name of "art and culture". And how about the Observer, produced in Toronto and shown on February 13th. Here was a St. Valentine's day offering for starry-eyed romantics which featured Dr. Albert Ellis, who was introduced to us as a "prominent sexologist from the U.S.A.". Did he dwell on the delights of St. Valentine's day? No, sir; that would be kind of "corny" and wouldn't provoke any "angry reaction". Instead, he offered his "professional" view that premarital and extramarital sexual relations were not only normal but necessary, and the best thing for family life!
On May 13th, we saw The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner on the Festival

Interim Supply
series. This gave a distorted conception of religion by showing a pious religious fanatic turn into a man who indulged in violence, rape, perversion, drunkenness, and murder. Certainly, Open Grave, which purported to he a modern day analogy of the Crucifixion, was a sickening perversion of the truth, showing as it did a modern "Christ" as a "misunderstood" ban-the-bomber who was persecuted for leather-jackected fascists" who dared to call him a communist! On June 4th, came to the Trespassers-a C.B.C. radio show on the Assignment series, where we heard the users of marijuana bragging about the joys of using the stuff and making a case for it to be taken off the restricted list in the interests of "personal freedom".
There is a lot more on the same lines but I am afraid I will run out of time if I read it all, so I had better proceed.
As the hon. member for Grey North said in this house a week ago:
Each play appeared to be an effort to outdo the previous one in vulgar language and in portrayals of seduction and illicit love.
Thousands of television viewers across the country were alarmed and disappointed to think that the C.B.C. with its great influence would give time to such revolting plays, which not only displayed bad taste but could be instrumental in promoting immorality in our young people.
With this view I agree 100 per cent. Thousands of television viewers across the country were alarmed and disappointed to think that this kind of stuff could be presented.
Now I should like to refer to some correspondence I have had from my constituency. I would begin by referring to a letter which I received on October 16. It reads:
Dear Sir:
It is with deep regret that we of the Leader "Little Flower" parish council C.W.L. have to protest some of the C.B.C. presentations on television. That such scandalous, licentious, illicit, lewd, irreligious and corrupt pictures are shown is beyond our comprehension. We expect pictures of uplifting and educational qualities to be viewed on a country-wide scale.
We sincerely hope that you, our most worthy representative, will voice our opinion to the C.B.C. and trust that action will be taken to bring us films worthy and fit to be seen on a country-wide scale.
I referred this matter to the Secretary of State. He treated my request with great courtesy and brought it to the attention of the C.B.C., which replied.
As to the quality of reception in my constituency, this is something which has been of concern to us for years. I could best bring it to the attention of the committee if I were to read a letter which I have received, together with a reply on behalf of the corporation. Here is the letter I received on August 20:
I do not know if you get the opportunity of doing anything relative to our T.V. reception in this locality, but when we read about the C.B.C. spending millions on added facilities in areas where they already have half a dozen outlets, it sure does burn us up living in these fringe areas.
As you know we seldom have a real clear picture, always snow, and most of the time so bad that one can hardly make it out, this summer it seems to be worse than ever, and everybody complaining, the sound has been worse than ever, an odd time you can hear other stations butting in to say nothing of local interference.
Then there is the item of antennas. I imagine they are all 40 feet or more and hundreds of these in a town of our size certainly does not add anything to its general appearance, to say nothing of the cost of them, plus the service. With such a weak signal naturally the antennas have to be kept in good shape, regardless of their unsightly appearance.
These points are not to be laughed off lightly, especially when one sees such large sums of money being spent by the corporation in the consolidation and development of existing facilities. Again, I appreciate the courtesy of the Secretary of State in dealing with this particular problem and I should like to retail his comments briefly. He said:
Unity, Saskatchewan, is situated just outside the "B" service contour of CFQC-TV-1, Stranraer, Saskatchewan, which is a rebroadcasting station of CFQC-TV, Saskatoon, at present an affiliated station of the C.B.C. television network. The corporation does not have a television station of its own in Saskatchewan.
Incidentally, I think it is time something was done about this. I know there is a freeze at present but surely it is time for this freeze to be taken off. The reply continues:
The corporation did make an application to reserve a channel in Saskatoon and was on the verge of applying for authority to establish a station when the freeze on applications for alternative service stations was effected. It has been announced that this freeze will remain in effect until after the report of the committee on broadcasting has been received.
I believe this may be far too long. The letter goes on:
You may recall that the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors for the Stranraer rebroadcasting station was challenged in the courts by Swift Current Telecasting Company Limited, owners of CJFB-TV, whose application for a television rebroadcasting station in Kindersley, Saskatchewan, was recommended for denial by the B.B.G. At the appropriate time, if the corporation is granted authority to proceed with its plans for a television station in Saskatoon, the present Saskatoon station CFQC-TV will no longer be affiliated with the C.B.C. network. In this event, the Swift Current Telecasting Company Limited, which is affiliated with the C.B.C. television network, has given the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. notice that it will apply for authority to establish a station of substantial power to serve the Kindersley areas. In this way, the area would receive a proportion of C.B.C. service along with local and regional programs via Swift Current.

Unity, Saskatchewan, is on the fringe of the "B" service contour of this proposed station.
With these comments, Mr. Chairman, I should like to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, when I
called it six o'clock I was left with only a few minutes of time, and in these few minutes I should like to deal with two matters which were brought up by previous speakers. First, it is evident that Liberal members do not want a committee to supervise the spending of the C.B.C. or to recommend program regulation. The hon. member for Halifax made this abundantly clear, in my view, when he listed three reasons for not having such a committee. These reasons are to be found at page 9443 of Hansard and the first reason is because it would be contrary to the principle of independence. Just what does he mean by that? Independence to do just as the C.B.C. pleases? I call that licence. I am sure the hon. member would agree it should have freedom to work within the framework of what is envisaged as its prime function. As that great prime minister R. B. Bennett saw it when it was created, it was to be a vehicle for national education and for national unity. I am sure he did not see it operating within that framework as a vehicle to deprave the morals of the youth of this country. We need a committee to check that licence. We need a committee to see that it does not subvert that purpose and to bring it back to reality if it does.
The second reason the hon. member gave was that it would be using parliamentary time to discuss the internal direction of a crown corporation. When I consider the many ways in which we use time in parliament I must confess that this does not disturb me very much. His third objection was the lack of expert knowledge by members of this house of the broadcasting art. 1 just wonder whether he is really making this suggestion seriously. We deal with a great many matters in this house on which it can be said that many members are not too well informed. This is partly due to the fact that there are inadequate opportunities for the members to oecome so informed. However, his criticism does not seem to me to be a valid one, for
Interim Supply
if we are going to deal with the work of the C.B.C. I am sure there would be many members who would be interested enough to inform themselves on the business of the C.B.C. and be able intelligently to discuss it and to deal with it. So much for his objections.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George spent five minutes this afternoon accusing my party of filibustering.


George James McIlraith: Hear, hear.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: If we are, then we had a good lesson from the Liberal party in 1962-63. He can quote figures, but the facts are that the government does not know how to run or how to organize the business of parliament and the business of the country. This has been demonstrated over and over. Does he need proof? There were the 60 days of decision; the withdrawal of the withholding tax; the fiasco of the 1963 budget; the painful orthodoxy of the 1964 one; the 11 per cent sales tax reduced to 4 per cent, upped to 8 per cent and which finally will become 11 per cent; the Canada pension plan with its "three times and out"; and the 38 pieces of legislation which the Prime Minister would have had us consider before summer recess. A Prime Minister should know more about the business of the country than that. And so one could go on ad infinitum, but I think I have demonstrated the point I set out to make, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the last speaker have clearly summarized the reasons why this country is facing today some of the gravest problems in its 97 years. There are grave doubts about our future expressed in every area of this nation, and these doubts do not decrease as time goes on but rather increase. They increase because people are concerned not only about the manner in which the present government is endeavouring to run the country but the manner in which it is giving away, around the bargaining table, rights which have been accepted as federal in nature and, even more than that, rights which have been accepted as necessary if we are to maintain a strong federal system in this nation of ours.
On September 17, in a press conference in Vancouver, the Prime Minister stated, among other things: "We have had more federal-provincial meetings in the last year and a half than I think in any other period". I believe that is true and I have no argument with that statement. The only realistic argument in this regard is that the federal government is taking an awful beating from the provincial

Interim Supply
premiers at the federal-provincial meetings. If we are to continue to have this type of conference, and that appears to be the case, we will end up without a federal system of government, and without a nation.


John Edward Lloyd: Why not get the facts?


Robert Carman Coates: The elder spokesman from Halifax once again is speaking from his seat. I cannot understand what he is saying, but perhaps he will get up on his feet at a later date and make some contribution to this debate. I am sure his constituents are very anxious for him to do that. I think he should make some constructive suggestions, in view of the problems in his constituency which did not exist 18 months ago.


John Edward Lloyd: You are well informed, sometimes.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I come from a part of Canada which cannot afford to allow a weakening of the federal system. There is a great deal of concern in the province of Quebec about its future, where it is going and how it is going to obtain the financial assistance from the people of this nation, and the people of Quebec, necessary to run its affairs in a manner satisfactory to the citizens. If this problem does exist in the province of Quebec I suggest it is the type of problem which is of some concern to the people of that province. If that is a problem there, what must be the problem in the Atlantic provinces, which have been battling these difficulties for a much longer period of time? Those provinces received no assistance whatsoever from the federal government until the Conservative administration took office, and lost that assistance which it received for six years as soon as the present government was re-elected to office.
I have no argument about the fact that the province of Quebec has financial problems, because I believe that is the situation. That may very well be the basic reason for the unrest we have heard and read so much about lately on television and in the newspapers. I do not believe this government is giving enough attention to either the economic problems of the province of Quebec or the economic problems of the whole Atlantic area. This is of great concern to the maritime provinces because unfortunately we do not have as many people to speak for us as do other provinces. Furthermore, fortunately or unfortunately, we do not have so many unstable residents who, when they do take action to bring their problems to the attention of the 
public, do so in a manner which neither befits that province nor the nation as a whole. We in the maritime provinces try to bring attention to our problems in a sane and sensible manner. However, we have received nothing but rejection from the government of the day.
If the Prime Minister of this nation spent less time at the table with the provincial premiers giving away federal rights and more time placing legislation on the statute books of this nation, it would be of benefit to the people of this nation. We would not have the provincial premiers on our backs so often, because the people of their provinces would be more satisfied with what was being done by the government in Ottawa, and less concerned about the fact that the provincial governments need more money to take the action which should be taken in the first place by the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, it is all very well for one government to blame another for the difficulties which arise within a nation, but what we have got to face more than anything else is that, unless we maintain a strong federal system, we have no chance of surviving as a nation. It is the height of ridiculousness to talk about associated states. What we need is one nation from coast to coast with equal opportunity for all, wherever they live. There is only one way to obtain this type of future welfare for our people, and that is by maintaining a strong central governmental system.
In this nation, which really has only two rich provinces-Ontario and British Columbia -and some other provinces which were have-not provinces when the Conservatives came into office in 1957, but have had many of their ills cured by the actions of the Diefenbaker administration during those years, there is only one area that is deserving of preferential treatment as far as I am concerned, and that is the area which lies east of the eastern Ontario border. It is absolutely essential that the federal government establish policies which will be beneficial to all these provinces. That cannot be done by a weakened, vacillating government which makes one blunder after another, earning little or no respect from anyone with whom it holds conferences. That is the situation which exists today. The provincial premiers look at the federal government and at its record during the last year and a half, and say to themselves that any negotiations will be a piece of cake, because the federal representatives are diplomats and believe that diplomacy is a matter of agreeing to everything suggested. That is an illustra-

tion of what we have received from the government in the way of negotiations at the federal-provincial level.
There has never been a more realistic statement made during the past 18 months in relation to federal-provincial negotiations than that made by Premier Robarts of Ontario on October 22. Here is the premier of one of the rich provinces speaking, one of the men who is in the best bargaining position, no matter how you look at it, one of the men who has less to fear from an economic point of view from the erosion of federal powers as we see it today. Yet we find the premier of Ontario stating that he is finished with these special deals that have been going on between the federal government and the province of Quebec, that he will not countenance separation either by one province or a group of provinces and that he will not countenance the contracting out of federal-provincial programs unless there are guaranteed national standards in these fields.
From the point of view of a member from the Atlantic provinces these were mighty good words to hear. This is the type of words we like to hear spoken, because there is no hope for us in the Atlantic provinces if the present government allows this country to be balkanized as is the case at present in the propositions it is putting forward. In an article which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of September 11 Joseph Scanlon stated among other things that $200 million would be made available to the province of Quebec on the basis of contracting out agreements which would run until 1970. He lists in detail the various programs which the government of the province of Quebec plans to contract out of and they include hospital insurance, old age, blind and disabled persons pensions, health grants, forestry agreements, campground and picnic area agreements. Some of them expire before 1970 and some of them continue until 1970.
But what a dangerous situation is inherent in this contracting out program. Where do we go when this is finished? How difficult must the financial situation of the province of Quebec be if the government of that province has to turn to this type of method to secure the finances it needs to discharge its duties to its citizens. There must be other ways. There must also be other ways in order to protect the have-not provinces of this country and to see that they are assured of at least minimum standards in every area of services.
Interim Supply
Along with the erosion of federal responsibilities a degree of disunity has developed in this country which no one would have anticipated even five years ago. I say five years ago because I consider that period of time a good yardstick. In 1959 our Queen visited us, as she did this year, and all one has to do is to go back to 1959, recall her visit then and compare it with her visit this year. When she visited Canada in 1959 we were a happy people. We looked forward to her coming. We celebrated in a joyous manner while she was here. There was great pride in our achievements and great hope for our future.
She came this year and before she even arrived there was tremendous concern that if she did come she would never leave alive. Harsh words were spoken about her. She came to the beautiful and gracious city of Quebec, and Quebec was like an armed camp preparing for the visit of a dictator. What a change in five years. Why? Why all of a sudden have we become so disenchanted with our own country? It is strange indeed that so much could have happened in such a short period of time.
There are many things that one can point to as reasons why this change has taken place. Certainly one of the reasons is the fact that we have so many parties in the house at the present time. I think another realistic reason is found in the fact that that portion of the Social Credit party which later became the Ralliement Creditiste party decided they had an opportunity to grasp a good deal of power and influence in the province of Quebec. They developed a nationalistic feeling in that province which they cannot now control, nor for that matter does it seem that anyone else can control its outer fringes.
There is also the fact that the people of the nation could not make up their minds as to what party should form the government and they still have not made up their minds. I have no doubt that if we had an election tomorrow there would be a good deal of difficulty in trying to predict what number of seats any party would have when the votes were counted. But associated with this reason is the fact that in the election of a minority government the people were convinced they were going to get able and aggressive leadership, and instead they got a government that has been accident prone ever since it took office. I do not think you have to take my word for that, Mr. Chairman. Too many articles have been written by too many men in the press gallery who were formerly strong

Interim Supply
and devout supporters of the Pearson team as it went to the people in 1962 and 1963. The Liberals had all the answers during those two campaigns but today they neither have the answers nor do they know in what direction they are going, nor can we be sure they will be going in the same direction today as they were going yesterday.
In order to fortify my statement I will put a few short quotations on the record from a number of men who, apparently, have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Pearson and his followers. The first is Peter Newman, well known for his articles about the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker, and their attitude when in office. I am looking for the quotation and there is so much interesting material here it is difficult to find. He says:
Although there have been almost none of the brassband disasters of the Diefenbaker years, in my opinion the domestic policies of the Liberals have been a grave, quiet failure.
They just sort of rolled up their sleeping bags and died.
Then, there is this article in the Montreal Star of September 12, 1964 entitled "Mr. Pearson's Diet of Crow":
No one eats crow with nicer manners or more grace than Prime Minister Pearson.
One concludes he must like the dish, since he returns so often to the table.
The article continues in that vein and is no kinder in its treatment of the Prime Minister as it reaches the end. Then, there is Charles Lynch, oertainly not a writer to whom we could ever point as one who gave us strong support. He has made similar comments on more than one occasion. I think, from a maritime point of view, what he says about the Minister of Finance is interesting. The Minister of Finance is the one who is well known as the man who was going to solve all our problems in the maritime provinces by giving us a one way ticket out. Charles Lynch says this:
Mr. Gordon is an optimist-it would be uncharitable to call him a cockeyed optimist, after all the other things he's been called-and he really believes these new measures will work, and wiil benefit the economy, and will erase the memory of his measures to keep Canada Canadian last year, which wrecked his budget and nearly wrecked him.
These are not very kind words about the man who was one of the strong advocates of the Pearson team. These are the men about whom we are concerned, about whom I am concerned as are most Canadians, because we wonder what our future is and where we will be when we celebrate our 100th anniversary.

We have a lot of serious problems facing us in the next three years. If we could get some decisive policies from this government, if we could see ourselves going forward with programs which were in the best interests of Canada, if we could hope that they would try to shore up the powers of the federal administration at the conference table rather than continually being forced to give in and back down, if we could hope that this government would provide that type of leadership for this country they would receive our support because it would be the type of action we know would be in the best interests of Canada.
How can you stand back and review the sad story of the first 18 months this government has been in office and want to allow them to give away any more of what we have worked so desperately hard to build in the last 97 years? I do not blame Premier Ro-barts for making the statement he did in the way he did. It is like a professional playing in a game with an amateur. After a while, you get tired of winning and I would think that this must almost be the case with the provincial premiers as they sit down at the table with the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers. They must not only get tired of winning, but they must see what is happening to this nation as a result of the fact they are winning every round. There are not many more rounds in this fight if we keep watching the Prime Minister get flattened in the ring. If he is flattened many more times in the same round, the championship will be awarded to the provinces and we will have ten associated states, but not for very long. We will become, whether we like it or not, a part of the United States of America because there will be nowhere else for us to go.
I would think the people of Quebec would be more concerned about this situation than anyone else because they seem to be so jealous of the special rights they have received under the British North America Act. Surely, they are not so unrealistic as to believe they could maintain that culture they love so dearly, and that language they love so dearly if they became part of the United States. Certainly they cannot exist as an island on the North American continent for any great length of time.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Dionne:: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that anyone could accuse me of having

impeded, in any manner whatsoever, since the beginning of this session, the work of this house, if the word "work" can be considered as appropriate.
Most of the time I observed, and this allowed me to note interesting facts which explain to a certain extent the economic disarray which at the present time afflicts the people of Canada.
At the beginning of my remarks allow me to sum up some facts which one can easily observe daily in this house: approximately 50 per cent of the questions asked at the beginning of the sittings are out of order, because they are not urgent and even a great number are futile. The press gallery attracts too many members who are more interested in showing off than in looking for true solutions to the present economic problems.
In my opinion, this unrestrained pride denotes a state of mind which is incompatible with the duties and the responsibilities of a representative who must first of all endeavour to serve his electors before helping himself.
One would not need to look around very long to find illustrations of the results of such a state of mind. The flourishing speeches delivered in view of raising the dignity of the representative of the people will carry no results if the persons concerned do not attempt to prove seriously that they are somewhat conscious of their responsibilities.
In my opinion too many seem to strain their ingenuity through a verbiage which is often useless, to waste much of the time of the house, by repeating time and again, with some variations in delivery, the same things which were previously said.
I concede that, in politics, repetitions are better than contradictions. However, I have known liars who would come to believe their own lies just by repeating them often enough.
Certain politicians should be careful on that point, lest responsible observers notice that rather weak side of their personality.
I know that parliament is a place where one must necessarily expect discussions, since we are here to legislate and to amend the laws governing our land, but it is always a good thing to stick to a happy medium and I feel that one should not break too often the rules of normal limitations. Consequently, I would be in favour of any reasonable amendment to our standing orders which would make it possible for us to get practical results from our discussions.
In final analysis, that is what the Canadian people expect from us.
20220-616J
Interim Supply
At present, we do not seem to find the time to consider serious legislation but that does not stop us from wasting time in spite of the fact that, in all walks of life, Canadians have to pay the taxes we levy.
I fail to understand how a certain number of supposedly serious people can be so lacking in their responsibilities to those who, at the price of great sacrifice, pay us high salaries that we do not have too much trouble negotiating. Those who claimed that members of parliament would be more interested in their work if they were well paid or better paid, must admit that the results of this session do not prove them right.
Those who are responsible for the introduction of legislation should make use of the best talents in the drafting of the various bills in order to prevent contradiction and especially to display enough foresight so as not to be faced with the alternative of having to make radical amendments as a result of pressures or discussions indicating want of foresight incompatible with common sense.
I would add that the problem is not a lack of legislation; I rather think that there is too much-it is somewhat like the flag models; we have thousands of them, but we lack determination on the means to take to adopt one.
This brings to my mind a thought which sums up a form of diplomacy in politics consisting in giving what we do not have and promising what we cannot give.
We have perhaps too many politicians who practice this kind of diplomacy; it is a cooing diplomacy which gives a great deal of expectations without any fulfilment.
The financial and economic situation in this country requires that personal political ambitions be left aside and that all people of goodwill endeavour to direct our country towards the objectives wanted by all Canadian citizens; peace, security and freedom to live in accordance with the vast potentialities of the country; this constitutes a great program of activities requiring an active and well-understood co-operation.
We have within reach a very efficient instrument of action, provided we get the loyal support of the majority of citizens of goodwill.
Among the various ways of celebrating properly the centennial of our confederation we should include, in the light of our errors and achievements, the firm determination to prepare for the future another 100 years better than those the Canadian people have

Interim Supply
lived through since the 1867 confederation, taking into consideration the facts existing now, with the knowledge that tomorrow's happening is often the result of yesterday's or today's action.
We should consider the situation of the Canadian people as a whole who have to support three governments, municipal, provincial and federal, paying taxes of all possible kinds conceived by the servants of our present financial system which is in continuing disagreement with the existing economic realities with its powers, it becomes a determining factor of the type of living the citizens of our country may enjoy.
And here I believe it is in order to quote an excerpt from a pamphlet entitled: "Merci du Communisme", written by Reverend Father Dugre of the Jesuit order. He said:
When hungry people ask for bread or for houses, should we give them a fine admonition or a house? When a young nation wants to avail itself of its vacant resources to develop, establish its sons, work for its own self, organize a fruitful life, why support it for ten years through the dole, while saving the national wealth for foreign capital?
By the way, I can say that I had personal knowledge of the famous ten year depression, and I may add that I have never forgiven the administrative system of that time for having kept us, healthy young men, ready to prepare their future, deprived for ten years of the possibility of earning 50 cents per day, or at least, deprived of the work we wished to have. And now I shall resume the quotation:
If there is a country which offers the possibility of a temporal life, it is indeed ours. In those resources challenging us, which God puts at our disposal, we should find a fuller life, or, otherwise, we shall clumsily go against the Creator's will, without being able to put the blame on Him. The fault will be that of the idle leaders, of the improvident ones, who apologize for their inertia by practicing what they call a strict economy.
Our democracy is imperfect, often hypocritical and heartless. It pays too little attention to legitimate complaints or grievances. It is too soft with important people, too hard on the little man. Such a thing ought never to happen in this young country of ours, with its potential prosperity amounting to millions which is hampered by miserable money or only meant for immigrants. There has been too much election politics. What we need is a social policy, aimed at the well-being of the family and the common good rather than for the benefit of friends and contributors to the slush funds.
Those words should make politicians stop and think, at least those who are still able to do so. This booklet is so interesting, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot help quoting another excerpt for the guidance of our planning

experts and socialist-minded people. Speaking of Russia, Father Dugre states:
Property, they claim, is being made collective, but you go ahead and try to make your streetcar ticket collective just to see who gets the ride? Communists have stretched to the extreme a calculation which is only half-right. They believed that boundless land, tremendous plants and big housing projects could save labour, heating, etc. They forgot that man is not a set of figures, but has various likes and dislikes, inclinations and aversions. And experience has also shown that 20 plants staffed with 100 men can produce more than just one plant with 2,000 employees, and with less control and more relaxation. Remember the sophism about the house being built by two men in six months; therefore, by 12 men in a month, 300 men in a day, 3,000 men in an hour and 180,000 men in a minute. It can no longer work, and yet the figures are right-
Mr. Chairman, in a civilization where the value of labour is of vital importance but runs the risk of being ignored or jeered at because of lucre, dishonesty and class struggle; charity must replace fear and compromise in the relations between management and labour if the world is to be saved from communistic materialism and if labour is to regain its true worth. It is not in the midst of constant insecurity that labour can carry out its lofty mission of feeding mankind.
Several labour leaders and businessmen begin to admit that a source of income other than the salary must be found in order to ensure a more equitable distribution of the increased production due to technological progress and developments of all kinds. Distribution methods applied up to now according to scarcity will have to be changed so as to adjust to an era of abundance.
There is an interesting article in the August issue of the Reader's Digest entitled:
Will robots control the world?
In a magazine published in 1936 appeared a summary of a study conducted by several scientists who had met in order to find a solution to the problems prevailing at that time. May I quote a few excerpts of an article by Mr. P. Barraud, an engineer:
In short, while the production equipment is work and leisure and, in this way, eliminate desti-bution have to be completely reorganized.
Therefore, there is only one problem: to distribute the actual wealth, the purchasing power, work and leisure and, in this way, eliminate destitution and insecurity. Let us keep in mind this scene of distribution among children:
10 children, 2 apples, the strongest wins;
10 children who have money, 2 apples, the highest bidder, if protected by police;
10 children, 15 apples, each his own according to appetite.
This is a symbol of the present crisis. We are acting like children.

We must restore the balance between the purchasing power and the value of consumable goods, probably through a distribution of the purchasing power based on needs and not on a piecemeal accountable inventory, or on work which no longer requires energy.
The first step will be to condemn the following ideas:
1.	scarcity;
2.	value based on supply and demand;
3.	freedom of price, work, trade and profit;
4.	capital having priority over purchasing power;
5.	domestic money based on gold.
We are not building castles in Spain nor proposing a theory, but the consequences of obvious facts.
Canadians are willing to work to manufacture goods. The government should manage to find the money, but should not take it from the needy.
It is not by looking for new terms to qualify the unemployed that idle hands will be provided with an income.
The fact that there are several kinds of unemployment: frictional, residual, chronic, or extended does not provide any income to a discouraged and inactive person.
A sound and orderly economic system geared to the needs of society must provide the necessary factors for security and should enable the people of a country as rich as ours to earn a decent living.
Production is too profit-geared and forgets that its purpose is consumption. I believe that now, during the debate on interim supply, is the time to cast an eye on the way our country is getting into debt. It would help us to see where our system is getting us.
As Canada grows and develops, the national debt increases. Under a system where new developments must be represented in dollar values, and where every new dollar is created in the form of a debt, we have here figures that are astounding. In 1867, the national debt was $93 million. In 1912, $500 million; in 1920, $3,041,529,587.
In 1939, the debt was $3,710 million; in 1947, $17,660 million, and in 1963, over $20 billion.
In the answer to a question I had put on the order paper under No. 854 concerning the amount paid in interest by the Canadian government on the national debt since confederation, we find that Canada has paid to financiers the fabulous amount of $15,287 million, from July 1, 1867 to March 31, 1964.
Mr. Chairman, imagine what could have been done in this country with this fabulous amount of $15 billion in interest only on the national debt.
When the country is in a state of lethargy, during a depression period for instance, its
Interim Supply
debt remains stationary or increases very little. It is when the country is very active, in wartime for example, that its debt increases the most.
Any increase in the production capacity represents progress and should bring in dividends to the shareholders of Canada, to Canadians. To attain this, the government should, on behalf of the population, issue and distribute new money in order to finance new activities. But when this is left to the banks, which are lending with interest, to supply the necessary funds for progress, it is impossible, financially, to make such progress without running into debt.
We have reached a point where we do not hear any more about the possibility of paying the debt of this country, since too great a percentage of the revenue is being used to pay the interest only which amounts to more than $1 billion.
The government of this country is doing precisely what the law does not normally allow a citizen to do that is "the non-payment of its own debts".
Our wise politicians from all parties may claim to know many things, but they seem to forget that the modern monetary system is above all an accounting system and that accuracy must be its prime quality: accuracy in the outstanding volume of credit. Since this credit represents the method of payment, it is obvious that it should be in keeping with the goods to be disposed of.
The greater the number of products offered for sale, the better prepared to buy them the consumers should be, since these products are made for them. This is not the case at present, control by the banks being what it is. Money is scarce whereas products are plentiful and there are machines and hands waiting for orders to start producing. We find credit controls under various forms and we know there are so many needs to meet.
Of all the dictatorships mentioned in history, of all those at least that we are able to see in action today, the most widespread is, of course, the financed dictatorship. As soon as a country passes the threshold of civilization, it passes under a financial dictatorship.
And this kind of dictatorship has made more victims, imposed more hardship, caused more suffering, wiped out more talents, broken up more homes than any other kind. It left more moral and physical ruins than all wars, however devastating, in the history of the world.
The succession of parties in power changes nothing. It seems that governments are there

Interim Supply
to tax, impose restrictions, preach hardship, even if there is everything in the country to ensure an easy living for everybody.
This is the same financial policy imposed by the same system upon the men who are in command whether they are from one party or the other.
This does not mean that the financiers are those who invented political parties. No, but as soon as parties became established in politics, first with modest slush funds supplied by those who are favoured with public contracts, the world of finance found there an excellent machinery to control public affairs.
Electoral funds have assumed proportions-and chains also.
All financial credit originates in the bank. By monetizing the national credit on behalf of the government, by means of debentures, the banks are making of the government, whatever party it belongs to, a perpetual debtor. By monetizing the production capacity of the great corporations to which it lends the credit thus established, the banks are placing in bondage the very ones who are filling up the election coffers so as to obtain the protection of the law.
Thus it can be seen that either directly or indirectly, the banking system is placing the government under tutorship. The time has come, I believe, for the people who have the welfare of the country at heart to find another way of coping with this problem.
The present government has succeeded in securing the greatest number of members by means of American financial assistance or publicity. Goods that are subject to such a high pressure advertising campaign always find buyers in the long run, be they of good or poor quality.
In this country we have heard the words "economic crisis", brought about by the stock exchange financiers; we have had deflation, inflation, regression and you know that I am forgetting some; but when all is said and done, it is always a money problem.
The demoralizing situation in 1929 left unforgettable marks which we still feel today. The old parties can no longer count on a meek body of citizens, ready to accept their unforgivable negligence; they will have to admit that the present financial system is obsolete and that it must be replaced by a system intended to help rather than subdue human beings.
Here, I quote from a newspaper published in Montreal an item entitled "Philosophy of Life", and written by H. Louis Arbour:

One of the greatest mistakes of modern times is that stupid belief in the necessity of poverty. How many people imagine that the poor are necessary and indispensable.
If in God's creation plan there is no room whatsoever for material wealth, we believe it is our duty to state that poverty also was excluded therefrom. In his great mercy and infinite province, God gave to the earth the power and the order to nourish all his children. Material wealth belong to this world and if they are so badly distributed now, God is not to be blamed. Only man is guilty. We are poor amid a phenomenal affluence. It is up to us to organize in the best interest of all.
In a democracy, the essential function of the government is to manage public affairs according to the principles set up by the people themselves, through their representatives. It is not the function of the government to interfere in the fields of private or cooperative enterprises, to assume responsibilities which belong to the individual by right, or to interfere with the rights of the individuals, except in order to protect the rights of the others.
The purpose of a national finance system is to supply an acceptable means of exchange with an adequate purchasing power, in a free economy, to make possible the distribution of goods equal to the value of the nation's production at a given time, so that each and every citizen may get at least the vital minimum.
A major objective of any well organized society must be to help each citizen obtain by his own work the necessary financial resources to be able to get, for himself and his dependents, an acceptable standard of social welfare, without having to resort to the services of the state. When that is impossible, society must assume the cost of such an acceptable social service, so that this service can be within the financial reach of citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks by quoting this thought of the founder of the distributive economic doctrine of social credit, Major Douglas:
Social Credit is a new strategy for an old battle, between the tyrant's will to dominate and the individual's will for freedom.


Mr. Chatierton:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this debate on interim supply I want to refer to a question which I believe will be one of greatest importance in the history of Canada, namely the question of the relationship of the federal government to the provincial governments. I propose to divide my discussion into four general parts under the following headings: (1) federal-provincial fiscal arrangements; (2) co-operative federal-

ism and the process of opting out; (3) proposed amendments to the British North America Act; (4) unilateral provincial action to create barriers along provincial boundaries.
First then, Mr. Chairman, with regard to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, we have a revenue pie, and the question arises as to how this pie should be divided between the federal government and the provincial governments. One could further ask how the local governments should receive their share. It is largely, though in my opinion not exclusively, the responsibility of the provincial governments to say what share of this revenue pie the local governments shall receive.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should make a few comments about what has happened in recent years with regard to the splitting of this revenue pie as between the federal and provincial governments. The British North America Act delegates or gives to each of the federal and provincial governments certain rights of taxation. Early in the war, I believe in 1941, by agreement the provincial governments gave up to the federal government the important rights of direct taxation, particularly in respect to income tax.
Let us consider what the federal government has paid to the provincial governments in recent years. In the fiscal year 1956-57, for example, the payments by the federal government to the provincial governments amounted to some $689 million. This amount increased in the fiscal year 1961-62 to $1,500 million, which is more than double what was paid in the fiscal year 1956-57. Those were years in which the previous government was in power.
I remember very well how that government was blamed for operating under large budgetary deficits. The fact is that if there had not been an increase in the payments to provincial governments there would not have been federal budgetary deficits during those years. There was no thanks given to the federal government of that time for those increased payments to the provinces. As a matter of fact, the government of that day was blamed for the large deficits it was incurring. This trend has been continued by the present government.
In the fiscal year 1963-64 the payments by the federal government to the provincial governments amounted to $1,900 million. Just recently, under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, a further increase was made by the present government in the payments to the provincial governments. In 1964-65 there is to be an increase in those payments to the extent of some $87 million. In the
Interim Supply
fiscal year 1965-66 there is to be an increase in the payments of $167 million. In the fiscal year 1966-67 there is to be an increase of $264 million.
I refer to these figures, and the recent Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act because of the interesting feature that appears in this legislation in respect of the distribution of these payments paid by the federal government to the various provinces.
When the previous government introduced the equalization formula it was designed to help the have-not provinces. Those provinces generally are conceded to be the four provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, passed a few months ago, that trend seems to have been changed. Under that provision the total sum of $218 million, in round figures, is to be paid to the provinces in the three years ending 1966-67. Of that amount some $136 million, or 61 per cent, is to be paid to one province, which is not one of the four have-not provinces. Those provinces receive a total of $44 million, which represents 20 per cent of the equalization payments under this provision. I mention that fact only as an aside. My main theme is, how is the revenue pie being divided between federal and provincial governments?
What should the test or criterion be as to which government, federal or provincial, needs the biggest slice of this revenue pie? It seems to me as a layman that one of the criteria that might be used is the extent to which each of these governments has a budgetary surplus or deficit. Quite often a government, such as the federal or provincial governments, will have a planned budgetary deficit for political reasons. However, in general terms it seems to me that the extent to which the expenditures of the government exceed its revenue is a good indication of the need of that government, and the extent to which that government feels it can increase taxation so as to increase its revenue.
Let us take a look at the deficits of the provincial governments as compared to the deficits of the federal government in recent years. In the five year period, 1960 to 1964, the combined budgetary deficits of the provincial governments amounted to some $12 billion. In the same period of time the budgetary deficits of the federal government amounted to some $29 billion. That is more than twice the combined deficits of the provincial governments. One might ask, what does twice

Interim Supply
the deficit mean? I have tried to relate the deficits of the provincial governments to the deficit of the federal government by relating them to the total revenue of those governments.
Expressing provincial deficits, for a four year period, as a percentage of the revenue available to the provincial governments, we find that the deficits amount to about 8 per cent; whereas in the case of the federal government, the deficits in relation to the revenues amount to over 8 per cent. My contention is that when it comes to splitting up the revenue pie between federal and provincial governments, the provincial governments have had their share.
In 1961 Hon. Donald Fleming, who was then the minister of finance, told us that during the federal-provincial conference held late in 1960 the provincial representatives to those conferences put their demands to the federal government, and that if the federal government had acceded to those demands it would have had to pay out some $2 billion each year in order to satisfy the provincial governments.
It is traditional that provincial governments place more and more demands upon the federal government, but the question is, how should this revenue pie be divided among the federal and provincial governments. A further question then arises as to what are the proper responsibilities of each of these levels of government.
I call to mind what the premier of British Columbia said in a brief he presented to the federal government late in 1960. He said that the proper source of revenue to finance education was income tax. At that time the provinces had given up their rights in respect of income taxes, by way of agreement. In 1961, under the new arrangements made by the previous government, that right was returned to the provinces, allowing them to levy income taxes. After the premier of British Columbia had received the right again to levy income taxes, no longer was this a proper source of revenue to finance education.
We then come to the question as to what are the responsibilities of the federal government compared with those of the provincial governments. Certainly the provincial governments have major problems but it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there are certain questions which, although under our constitution they might properly be provincial responsibilities, are problems that can be solved only by either direct or indirect
[Mr. Chatterton.l
federal action, and this certainly involves federal expenditure.
I have in mind, for example, higher education. Late last year the Canadian universities foundation requested that the federal government make available the sum of $300 million in matching capital grants. There is the question of northern development. There is the problem of the urbanization of Canada. In my opinion one of the major questions that will face Canada in the next quarter of a century will be what is to be done to solve the problems created by people moving into the metropolitan areas. Certainly the actions that federal governments have taken to date with regard to urban renewal have merely scratched the surface.
Another federal responsibility that will have to be faced is medicare. There is the question of water resource development across our country and the question of a transcontinental power grid. There are innumerable questions such as these that obviously have to be tackled by the federal government, although they may not be clearly its responsibility under the constitution. Therefore there has to be a reappraisal of the position of the federal government in relation to the provincial governments in so far as the division of revenue is concerned, and it seems to me that the premier of the province of Manitoba put his finger on the right spot when he said that there should be a clear definition of priorities in so far as the federal and provincial governments are concerned.
The next heading I want to deal with under the general question of federal-provincial relations is that of the so-called co-operative federalism or opting out process. Throughout the world today there is a trend promoted by necessity for governing bodies to get together and through a more central organization solve the problems which are common to the lesser parts. A good example of this is the creation of the common market, but even in Africa there is a general movement, though a halting one, of the emerging countries to get together to see whether in a co-operative fashion they can solve the problems that each of these countries faces.
It seems to me that today in Canada the trend is in the other direction. I know it is said frequently that Canada is a country of widely differing parts and therefore it is necessary for each of these differing parts to have a large measure of autonomy. The fact is that Canada is a difficult country to govern, largely because of the differences of

geography of its parts, but also because of ethnic differences; but by the same argument I think it is essential that the central government introduce a certain measure of equal opportunity in every sector of these differing parts of Canada.
When we are considering the problem of opting out, co-operative federalism and the relation of citizens of Canada to their provinces and the federal government the question arises, which am I first? Am I first of all a Canadian and second a provincial? I believe the hon. member for Queens raised this question in his very thoughtful speech a couple of days ago, and this brings me to what seems to be a problem in at least one of our provinces. I refer to a speech made by the Minister of Justice on October 20, 1964, before the chamber of commerce of the district of Montreal. As found on page 9 of the released text of the minister's speech, he is talking about the position of the members of parliament from the province of Quebec, whether there is a difference in loyalty, and he said:
How, in practice, do these members of parliament reconcile their double loyalty as Quebeckers and Canadians? They do so by realizing that the cultural ideal incarnate in Quebec does not deny the political ideal incarnate in Canada. My colleagues and I are, to begin with, French Canadians; we seek intransigently the free flowering of French civilization from sea to sea, beginning with the province of our birth.
The words I want to emphasize in this quotation are:
My colleagues and I are, to begin with, French Canadians.
It is this question of emphasis as to what I am first which it seems to me creates the problem in Canada today. The Minister of Justice seems to feel that he is first of all a provincial. Should I say that I am first of all a British Columbian and then a Canadian, or should I say I am first of all an English Canadian and then a Canadian? In my opinion there should be no question that we are first of all Canadians, and then after that we can offer our allegiance to our provinces or our municipalities or our ridings or whatever it may be.
There is a trend recently in Canada toward the decentralization of power from the federal government to the provincial governments. When I speak of centralization I am not referring to bureaucracy. Under the present government there is also a growing trend toward increasing control and increasing bureaucracy. For instance, in the d.b.s. bulletin for October 30, 1964 some
Interim Supply
figures are given with regard to federal government employment. The government of Canada together with its corporations and agencies employed some 341,153 persons as of May 31 this year, which is an increase of 2,619 from May, 1963. The bulletin goes on to point out that the increase in cost is some $20 million for five months of the year or some $50 million per year. This is a different kind of centralization. This is what I would call the growth of bureaucracy, and certainly it is a trend away from what the Glassco commission recommended.
But what I mean when I refer to centralization or decentralization is the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from the Vancouver Province of October 6, 1964. This editorial is headlined, "One More Strike and They're Out". I quote:
Any government can make a mistake and, through public forgetfulness or forgiveness, expect to survive. But when a government-such as the present Liberal administration in Ottawa *-makes blunder after ghastly blunder, its life expectancy becomes precarious.
This could explain why the government is under pressure from some of its supporters to take a tougher line with the provinces in a series of constitutional and tax talks which start in the capital this week.
If Mr. Pearson and his advisers fritter away much more national authority by allowing the provinces to "opt out" of more national programs they can endanger the whole fabric of Canadian unity. Such weakness might be the last straw for the government, a minority government that holds office only at the pleasure of splinter groups in the House of Commons.
I skip part of the editorial and read another paragraph:
Little more need be said about Mr. Pearson's so far unsuccessful effort to impose a new flag on the country. His misguided plan to promote greater national unity with his maple leaf banner has inflamed the most violent regional quarrel in years. It brought parliament to a standstill for more than three weeks and is still unresolved.
This, Mr. Chairman, indicates how editorial writers across the country feel with regard to this so-called co-operative federalism of the present government. There are one or two instances recently which I could cite relating to acts passed by this parliament. One is the Canada Student Loans Act, a piece of legislation that was excellent in its intent but I believe the Minister of Finance will find out when he has completed his investigation that serious weaknesses have shown up in the administration of this act. This results almost entirely from the fact the administra-

Interim Supply
tion was left to the provinces, and the fact that the legislation did not apply to the province of Quebec.
Then, we have on the order paper a resolution relating to the Canada pension plan. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has assured us that the plan the province of Quebec will pass will be in major respects similar to the proposed national Canada pension plan. But what will happen in the years to come? We have been assured that there will be complete portability between all provinces in so far as the pension is concerned. What will happen if five or 20 years from now the province of Quebec, which is the only province that so far has indicated it will opt out of that plan, makes changes within its own plan? How portable will the pension then be if the Quebec plan differs materially from the Canada pension plan that is created by a federal statute and then applies to the other nine provinces? These are problems that may well arise in the future.
When it comes to this question of opting out, not only are the provinces allowed to opt out of new programs proposed by this government, but this government is going one step farther and allowing the provinces to opt out of existing, well established and proven programs. The Prime Minister, in his letter of August 15, 1964, gives the provinces the right to opt out of hospital insurance, old age assistance, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowance, unemployment assistance, vocational training, health grants and several others such as forestry agreements, hospital construction, roads to resources and so on. It seems to me that the need to strengthen some of these programs by action by the federal government is even greater today than at the time these programs were instituted. For example, there have been a number of briefs presented by the forest industry of British Columbia to the effect that the federal government should take more initiative in carrying out research in so far as forest fire protection is concerned. Yet the proposal of the present government is that these provinces could opt out of these forest agreements.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from an editorial in the Vancouver Province of October 24, 1964. The headline is, "Leading Canada toward the abyss". I read a part of this editorial:
From every part of Canada come indications that well-meaning peacemaker Lester Pearson is blandly and blindly leading the Canadian union

into a bottomless manhole.
I skip a part and I quote again:
This is supposed to mean a system of give and take between Ottawa and the provinces. But it is rapidly becoming a synonym for a division of this nation into a headless collection of minor principalities.
Again, I skip a part and continue to quote:
Canada is changing its constitution (the British North America Act) through secret conversations between Ottawa and the provincial governments. The public will be told what is good for it in pompously phrased communiques or in what leaks out from the secret meetings...
Canada is in danger of ceasing to be a nation in the truest sense of the word and becoming a collection of provinces divided by regional and racial interests having few common goals and interests.
Canada has stood united for nearly 100 years. It can fall apart in five if positive steps are not taken to avert such a tragedy. Already Premier Ross Thatcher of Saskatchewan has warned that his province would consider union with the U.S. if Quebec left confederation...
In all this the chief burden of responsibility falls on Mr. Pearson and his government. It is the national government, charged with leading, not following, the provinces. This demands toughness and steadiness, and more than a little of what Winston Churchill calls a "touch of the brute" on the part of Mr. Pearson.
"Co-operative federalism" sounds good. But it could be the death rattle of nationhood unless there is a great deal more federalism and a great deal less enthusiasm for the idea of subdividing our country into ten little satraps.
I am afraid that this government does not have this toughness to which this article refers, but they have demonstrated-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him his time has expired.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter this debate briefly this evening to make a plea to the government on behalf of a group of Canadian citizens who I believe are not being fairly treated. This particular group is the federal civil service superannuates. My submission is on behalf of all of this group in general but especially on behalf of those who retired between the years 1952 and 1958.
My attention was drawn to this matter early this year when I and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton met in Fredericton with the Fredericton branch of the federal superannuates national association and heard their submission. These men and women have rendered loyal and faithful service to our nation, and in a great many cases they are suffering severe hardship because of the meagre superannuation they are being paid.
I would like to quote from a letter dated April 13, 1964, signed by Mr. Fred W. White-

house, national secretary-treasurer of the federal superannuates national association, and addressed to the Prime Minister. I shall not read all of the letter, just the parts that are pertinent to the point I want to raise:
Under the Public Service Adjustment Act 1958-59, no person who retired under the five year plan after December 1959 and under the ten year plan after December 1952, received any benefits. E.g. an officer of the immigration branch who retired March 3, 1954 as an 1.0.7, received a salary for 1953 of $4,553.26, and his superannuation was computed on his last ten years of service, his salary in 1944 being $2,530. Had he retired the same day in 1964, he would have a rating of F.S.O.2 with a salary of $7,460 and superannuation would be computed on his last six years of service. This example applies throughout the service.
This particular group I have mentioned, those retiring between 1952 and 1958, are by far the worst off of all the superannuates. The letter goes on to say:
The United Kingdom increased pensions in 1952. 1956, 1959 and again in 1962. The commonwealth of Australia passed an act which came into effect November 13, 1963, granting increases to retired civil servants of that country. The government of the United States of America-
In which we are all deeply interested this evening.
__recognized the need for upward adjustment in
pensions of its retired federal personnel some years ago and made periodic upward adjustments. A bill was recently passed to provide an escalator clause in that pensions of retired federal personnel would automatically be adjusted when the cost of living showed an increase of 3 per cent or more.
We know your government is aware of what other countries throughout the world have done for their retired employees and, as pointed out in previous representations, Canada is sadly lacking in this respect.
We are not unmindful of the fact that our basic superannuation plan is considered one of the best, and we would like to keep it in that category. This cannot be done unless amendments are made in the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act which are so vitally necessary, as we have tried our utmost to point out to your government.
These are some figures quoted in this letter which amazed me:
According to the Public Accounts of Canada, March 31, 1963, volume I, page 167, the public service superannuation fund had an accumulated surplus at that date of $1,724,116,105-
Note that figure of $1 billion.
-an increase over the previous year of $137,187,000. I am requested to state once more it is the considered opinion of the superannuates of this country that an upward adjustment in their pensions could be made from the superannuation fund without cost to the general public when such a huge surplus has accumulated, as shown in the above figures.
As reported in the press this morning, the Civil Service Association of Canada took this
Interim Supply
matter up with the Prime Minister yesterday, and I would like to place on the record the press release which the association issued:
The Civil Service Association of Canada today released the text of a letter to Prime Minister Pearson calling for a review of civil service pensions. The letter to the Prime Minister cites the straitened circumstances of many pensioners and calls for a new policy of periodic pension review.
The C.S.A.C. wants the government to ensure that retired civil servants will have their pensions increased by a percentage equal to any salary adjustment for active civil servants. The association asks for a cyclical review of civil service pensions, every two years, as is now the case with salaries.
The association spokesman went on to say that his organization had made representation on many occasions seeking an equitable system for periodic pension review. In asking for a new government policy for pensioners the C.S.A.C. says:
We do not believe that we exaggerate in saying the situation of many pensioners is tragic.
Reviewing the developments of the past 20 years the C.S.A.C. notes that the purchasing power of the 1943 dollar has been reduced now to 56 cents and the association declares that it believes "some regular procedure of periodic pension adjustment is necessary." The actual resolution that was referred to reads as follows-and I wish to place it on the record for the benefit of hon. members interested in this problem:
Whereas in many cases, retired civil servants have been superannuated on the percentage of salary retirement, and
Whereas many of these retired civil servants, because of age, sickness or other reasons are unable to supplement their superannuation pay, and Whereas the cost of living has steadily risen and continues to rise, causing hardship to those who, after, in many cases, long and faithful service to the country are now living in very straitened circumstances with no consideration being given to adjusting pensions, when salary increases are being given or considered for government staffs, therefore
Be it resolved that the government implement on a regular two year cycle a review of pensions for all superannuated employees, and that pensions be adjusted in line with the percentage of salary increase granted employees during this period, and Be it further resolved that moneys to cover such increase be recovered from the general consolidated revenue fund.
There is also a table included which I will not put on the record but it emphasizes that the 1943 dollar is now worth only 56 cents.
I would therefore ask the government, and more specifically the Minister of Finance, who I regret is not here and neither is his parliamentary secretary-but I see the President of the Privy Council in his seat and I am sure he is deeply interested in this problem-

Interim Supply
to take action at once on behalf of these people, who I believe are being unfairly treated.
There are many problems facing our nation in this day and age. Some of them have been discussed during the last few days of this debate. There is the constitutional problem and a great many others such as the unrest in one of our founding provinces, a province in which I am deeply interested; the increase in crime, especially among juveniles in our larger cities; the impact of automation which is changing the whole pattern of employment, and the large number of Canadians we find who are without proper skills and education and who form the hard core of the unemployed.
But there is another problem that is pertinent to what I have been discussing this evening, the very insidious problem of inflation. Almost every monthly release of the dominion bureau of statistics shows an increase in the cost of living. The purchasing power of the dollar is going steadily downward year by year. Inflation falls especially heavily on those who are living on fixed incomes, particularly those who are living on small annuities and pensions. We know, of course, that over the past eight years old age pensions have been increased in several stages, from $40 until they now amount to $75 a month, and we are also aware that there have been corresponding increases in pensions to the blind, the disabled, and others. There remains the group of people about whom I have been speaking. I think more could be done for them by government, not only by this government but perhaps by the previous one, too. Those who have served this nation and who have retired on very small pensions, and upon whom the effects of inflation have fallen most heavily-these are the people upon whose behalf I have taken a few minutes of the time of the committee this evening.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

Mr, Mcllraiih moved:: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain
expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, the sum of $740,710,974.77, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllraiih thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-135, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


Mr. Churchill:: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that the Chair call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the leader of the house about the business tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: The first item of business tomorrow will be the completion of the further stages of the appropriation bill. When that measure is completed we will call the estimates beginning with the items of the agencies for which the Minister of Industry reports to the house-those items which have not yet been dealt with. Then we shall consider the items for which the Minister of Labour reports and, after that, the Departments of Forestry, National Revenue, and Public Works.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask whether we shall continue with the main estimates on Thursday and Friday, if the appropriation bill is completed?


George James McIlraith: I think I will reserve answering that question until the morning; I had not quite anticipated that it would be asked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I trust the minister will not forget the Canada pension plan?


George James McIlraith: I never forget that plan, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 4, 1964