1964-05-28

[u'I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:\nOttawa, May 28, 1964\nSir:\nI have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 28th of May, at 5.45 p.m\u201e for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.\nX have the honour to be, sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nA. G. Cherrier,\nAssistant Secretary to the Governor General.']
Mr. Speaker:: 

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. Matheson.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
May 26-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag and also to provide that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations and of our allegiance to the crown.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
May 26-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That the government be authorized
to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that "O Canada" shall be the national anthem of Canada and that ''God Save the Queen" shall be recognized as the royal anthem in Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the prolonged strike of the longshoremen at St. John's, Newfoundland, could he bring the house up to date on what further steps he is planning to take to bring both parties together in order to arrive at a solution of this dispute?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the latest word I have is that the federal mediators propose and hope to bring the parties together to reconvene the meetings early next week, and the purpose of these meetings is either to explore or settle the issues outstanding, or the development of other methods of settlement. These officials are in constant touch with both parties in exploring every possible avenue that might lead to a settlement.


Michael Starr: In view of the fact that the efforts to do this in the past four weeks were without any satisfaction or result, would the minister consider bringing both parties together and negotiating himself in this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the officials who are dealing with this situation are experienced in these problems. They have not been active in the situation for a full month because, as my hon. friend knows, in situations of this kind there must be a willingness and a desire on the part of the parties to reach a settlement before a mediator can actively function. It is a fact also that the federal mediators have not been able to deal alone with the situation because there have been other well-meaning persons also attempting to settle it. It may be now that a situation has been created in which the fullest use of federal mediators will take place.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald MacXnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour which I am sure he will agree is most urgent, involving the problem that the mediators are faced with in the strike at St. John's, Newfoundland. Would the minister give consideration to having Mr. Gleason come up again from New York, as he did in Montreal several months ago, and save the government a lot of trouble which it seems it cannot handle.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. As I recall it, Judge Lippe had success in resolving the dispute in Montreal, but unfortunately he is not available for this situation.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.-TRANSFER OF MANUFACTUR- ING FIRM TO MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['There are consultations on this matter, and Canada is a participant in those consultations. The present position is that we are in favour of consultations under article IV of the Geneva protocol, and we would be willing to take part in such consultations. It would seem to us preferable that such consultations take place in a less formal way than is normally understood by the proposal to hold an international conference. I might say we also believe it would be preferable that any consultations take place in Vientiane, to enable the Laotian prime minister to stay in his country at this critical period.']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether his department is doing anything about the problem of the McAvity's manufacturing concern in Saint John, New Brunswick, which is being closed with the idea of moving the plant to Montreal, involving the loss of employment for some 400 workers. Is the Department of Industry doing anything to prevent this move and to assist the company in remaining in its present location?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the question, important though it is, is one for the order paper.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask who was responsible for the muddle which prevented Canada from being represented by a cabinet minister at the funeral of Prime Minister Nehru.


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no muddle in respect of Canadian representation at the funeral ceremony of the late prime minister of India. The government had hoped and had endeavoured to see to it that a member of the government would attend the funeral. Because of the generous invitation of the President of the United States and the U.S. secretary of state, a Canadian representative was offered an opportunity to fly to India in the presidential plane.

Unfortunately, because of the time of the funeral it was not possible for the presidential plane in Washington to wait until the arrival from Ottawa of a minister. The Minister of National Defence had made preparations; he had gone to the airport in Ottawa; but we were advised that in order to enable the representative of the government of the United States to be in India in time for the funeral, the plane would have to leave Washington ahead of the scheduled hour of departure.
Canada was represented at the funeral this morning by the ambassador of Canada in Cairo, Mr. Jean Chapdelaine, our high commissioner in Ceylon and the charge d'affaires of our mission in Delhi.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house at what time the invitation was received and at what time the presidential plane left Washington for India?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say at exactly what time the presidential plane left Washington. I think it was just before noon. We were advised about the invitation some time between nine and ten o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister this. In view of the liaison which is supposed to have been established between the air services of the two countries, surely it would have been possible between the time the invitation was received and the time the presidential plane left for the R.C.A.F. to have flown the minister of defence to Washington.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The plane which could have reached Washington in an hour and a half was not in Ottawa at the time. It was in New York city and it was not possible to get it back in time. Every effort was made.
I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want to allow his questioning to convey the impression that there was not the keenest desire, and that every effort was not made, by the government to discharge a responsibility which, in the circumstances, it was its duty to perform. There can be no doubt-and I am sure the hon. member would not wish to leave such a doubt-of the deep regret of the government, shared by every member of this house and the people of this country, at the death of the great prime minister of that great Asian nation, India.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So there may be no misunderstanding I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am sure the government had every desire to be represented at the funeral. I do want to say to the minister, however, that I think there was an inexcusable amount of

Inquiries of the Ministry
incompetence on the part of whoever was Mr. Diefenbaker: I have the floor at the responsible for making the arrangements. moment. I am not having those interruptions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot allow
the hon. member's words to pass without comment. There was no incompetence. It is not the fault of the government if we did not have a plane which could fly our representative from Canada to the funeral in time. We simply do not have such a government plane.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it is a fact. If the Minister of National Defence could have flown to Washington in time to join the presidential plane, he certainly would have done so. He made every effort to do so. It is not, desirable, if I may say so, for the hon. gentleman to persist in this questioning because of the wrong and unfortunate impression that it may create. We had considered asking our high commissioner in London to fly from London to Cairo, but the high commissioner was on his way to Canada to fulfil another engagement. Every effort was made to have a member of the government attend the funeral of Prime Minister Nehru. No country would be more desirous of having a representative of its government at the funeral than Canada which enjoys, and has enjoyed for a long time, such a valued friendship with India.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: After all that explanation I have one simple question. When did this plane-the only one which could have conveyed the Canadian representative to Washington-find its way to New York, and for what purpose was it in New York?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It had gone to New York for the purpose of enabling a minister of the crown to discharge an important function in New York city on behalf of the government of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: The question was, when had it gone?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am advised that the plane had left that morning, before we received the news; and I am sure a former prime minister of Canada will recognize the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: I do. I fully recognize it as an example of complete negligence, if I am asked the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor at the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the right hon. gentleman has made a comment-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that we have had a very long discussion about this matter and that a full explanation has been given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, involving-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -what the right hon. gentleman has said. I should say to him that I cannot take back the words he has uttered, but I can say to him as a former prime minister that those words and his comments were not worthy of one who has held that high office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into a controversy with the hon. gentleman. When it comes to unworthiness he has a place all his own.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport, relating to the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister that Canada had no aircraft capable of taking someone to India in time for the funeral. Was any contact made by the minister with T.C.A. in relation to the need to transport a member on the treasury benches to India?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that I was on the train travelling to Montreal at the time the news was received by the government. Therefore it was not possible for me to take any action in the matter, but I am perfectly sure my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs did everything humanly possible in the circumstances.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Then will the Acting Prime Minister answer the question, if he was the one handling this whole business?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that matter was gone into.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister with respect to the investigation into the possibility of T.C.A. supplying an aircraft so that a member of the government could attend the funeral of the late prime minister of India. If the matter was gone into, as you will recall it was in the case of Mr. Symington, the ex-president of T.C.A. who died some time ago, could he inform the

Inquiries of the Ministry house what was the reply of T.C.A. as to why an aircraft could not be supplied?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will recall what I said when this question was put earlier, there was the question of time involved. The death of the late prime minister of India was made known in the morning. We had to take into account the fact that the plane would have to arrive in time for us to take part in the funeral, and after examining the schedule of the funeral and other factors, the conclusion was that this could not be done.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address an entirely proper and fitting question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of reports that consultations among at least six of the 14 nations who signed the 1962 Geneva agreement respecting the neutrality of Laos were expected to begin in Vientiane some time this week, has the minister any information he could give the house with respect to this reported meeting and is the government intending to send representatives to the meeting?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are consultations on this matter, and Canada is a participant in those consultations. The present position is that we are in favour of consultations under article IV of the Geneva protocol, and we would be willing to take part in such consultations. It would seem to us preferable that such consultations take place in a less formal way than is normally understood by the proposal to hold an international conference. I might say we also believe it would be preferable that any consultations take place in Vientiane, to enable the Laotian prime minister to stay in his country at this critical period.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of the serious situation created in the city of Toronto, where a man was incarcerated for 100 days without trial and without a charge being laid; then the charge was laid against him of failing to answer questions asked by an immigration officer.

Now that the minister has had an opportunity of looking into this matter, while the wrong that has been done cannot be rectified can he give the assurance to the house that from now on people are not going to be incarcerated because they fail to answer the kind of questions that sometimes are asked, not always legally, by immigration officers?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, certain facts reported by the Leader of the Opposition are inaccurate. The man in question was put in custody under the immigration legislation. Different proceedings were taken while he was in Canada. If certain delays occurred, either at the level of the department of immigration or the level of the administration of justice, such a situation will be corrected in future. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) will soon submit a more detailed report to the house.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether the people in his department who are guilty of either negligence or of being very slow will be reprimanded or disciplined for what they did in the past, not for what they may do in the future.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that such an assertion is true. There has been no undue delay. However, certain reports at the various levels of the administration have been made official and we shall try, as much as possible, to shorten those delays in the future.


Mr. Pugh:: Sixty days and 100 days.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to direct this question to the Minister of Justice. I wonder if he would care to disclose to the house why bail was granted and then two hours later the charge that had finally been laid was withdrawn, after 90 to 100 days. I think it is a matter for the Minister of Justice to take a look at, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly do not want to prevent any questions on anything having to do with the liberty of any citizen of this country, but this matter was discussed yesterday and an explanation has been given today. The hon. member for Bow River is asking for detailed information. May I suggest that he put his question on the order paper.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have this matter discussed at ten o'clock.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Is the minister able to confirm whether this man was in jail without trial for 90 days or more and, if so, does he not think that in itself is undue?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the same question in effect as that asked by the hon. member for Bow River, and I would ask the hon. member to put it on the order paper, or he may have an opportunity later on this evening to discuss it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give notice to have the matter discussed at ten o'clock.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on this matter I asked the Minister of Justice a question on Monday and he said he would take it as notice and reply later. Now the minister is here perhaps he can make that reply.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will give the house a full account of what took place, because I and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration requested a report on all the circumstances. I have a direct answer prepared which I will make on my own responsibility; but as it is quite lengthy I suggested yesterday to the hon. member who put the last question that he might want to put his question on the order paper so I could table the answer. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is of the opinion that the matter is urgent enough for me to read the answer, although it might be somewhat lengthy. Therefore if hon. members agree I shall do so right now.


Mr. Speaker:: A matter dealing with human liberty does seem to me pretty important, and if the house gives consent and the minister is prepared to make a statement now I think we should hear him.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is this not an unusual procedure? You have ruled several members out of order and directed that they should put their questions on the order paper; you have made it necessary for an hon. member to give notice to debate the matter at ten o'clock; but now that the minister is prepared to answer you are going to go along with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member had listened to the discussion he would have understood-at least I would hope so-the remarks I made to the effect that dealing with the rights of citizens seem to me an important matter. The minister is prepared to deal with the matter now and I asked whether 20220-2341
Inquiries of the Ministry the house was prepared to listen, and I understood from the house that it was. Therefore it seems to me that those last remarks are really out of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the attention of the house and Your Honour the fact that the questions asked also dealt with the rights of citizens.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have now received a full report concerning the case of Mr. Harry Hooper and have discussed it with my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I find that Hooper was in custody during the period of February 25, 1964 until Tuesday of this week, but this incarceration was not by any means related only to the charge which was preferred against him under section 50(e) of the Immigration Act.
He was first taken into custody by the metropolitan Toronto police on a charge of having assaulted his estranged wife. This charge was subsequently withdrawn on March 15. This part of the detention was therefore under provincial authority.
He continued in detention under the authority of the Immigration Act as a person believed to be in Canada unlawfully and subject to deportation. He had been deported on three previous occasions. The first time was in March 1962, and this order was based on the fact that Hooper had been convicted at Toronto on January 4, 1961, for having been in possession of a drug in violation of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
The Immigration Act provides that persons who are deported shall not return without specific permission from the minister, but notwithstanding this Hooper returned to Canada without authority and was deported a second time on February 26, 1963. He again entered Canada illegally and was deported a third time on January 4, 1964. He returned three days later.
The inquiry with respect to his fourth unlawful entry got under way on March 23, after he had been given ample opportunity to retain counsel if he wished to do so. At the inquiry he refused to answer questions put to him by the special inquiry officer. The Immigration Act provides that such refusal is an offence punishable on summary conviction. Because of Hooper's refusal the special inquiry officer found it necessary to adjourn the hearing to April 7, at which time other evidence was adduced to establish his unlawful entry and he was ordered deported to the United States, of which country he is a citizen. He did not appeal against the order.
The next step in the sequence of events was this. Immigration officials at Toronto decided to refer the case to immigration headquarters

Inquiries of the Ministry in Ottawa for instructions on whether to execute the deportation order immediately or take steps to have a charge preferred in relation to Hooper's refusal to answer questions put to him at the inquiry. In this connection it should be noted that the Immigration Act provides that a person who commits an offence under the act is liable to be prosecuted and to undergo punishment notwithstanding that a deportation order has been made against him.
It was decided to prefer the charge, but in the making and implementing of this decision there was a lengthy delay and the charge was not laid until May 22. Hooper was brought before a magistrate on that date and the case was adjourned until May 25. Because of the delay between the making of the deportation order and the preferring of the charge it was decided it should be withdrawn, and this was done with the permission of Magistrate Bigelow on Tuesday of this week.
Certain delays were occasioned in the administrative machinery in processing this matter, but I can assure hon. members that steps have been taken, after discussion between myself and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to prevent the repetition of such an occurrence in the future.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Justice now answer my question of yesterday in which I asked him to ask the provincial attorneys general to see whether there are any other people who are victims of such absolutely shocking delay in preferring and processing charges?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, now that the facts have come to my attention, and although I would have no jurisdiction to request intervention-


Mr. Fairweather:: You have jurisdiction to lead.


Guy Favreau: If the hon. member will bear with me I think he will be satisfied with the attitude I intend to suggest I ought to take. Although I have no jurisdiction to request the attorneys general of the provinces to act, as was suggested yesterday-and this is the reason my answer had to be what it was-[DOT] now that the facts are before me I intend to refer both the facts and the question of my hon. friend to the various attorneys general with the suggestion that they might want to make inquiries in their respective domains.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question

to the Minister of Public Works. Could he tell us whether employees of his department have measured the flagpole at the top of the parliament tower to see if it will be possible to raise simultaneously the two flags proposed by the government?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence but in his absence I will address it to the associate minister. Is it a fact, as reported in the morning paper, that 25 per cent of Canada's interceptor aircraft, the Voodoos, have been mothballed?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the article to which the hon. member has referred, which reports that the R.C.A.F. fighter strength has been reduced by 25 per cent. This report is inaccurate. As a matter of fact, of the 66 CF-lOl's that we had on inventory, 64 now remain. Of this total 55 aircraft are being used for squadron operations and training and nine aircraft are undergoing rotational modification and maintenance, which is the normal situation in maintaining fleet effectiveness.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, who is also a member of the nation's intelligentsia. Can he give the house any information on the government's attitude in response to an interesting and thoughtful letter sent to the Prime Minister, other ministers and, indeed, to all members by an outstanding group of Canadian scholars, including such a great historian as Professor Creighton, suggesting the withdrawal of what the writers call the "innocuous" flag design and putting forward a formula for producing a more meaningful and widely acceptable symbol which would invoke the history of this great country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the correspondence to which my hon. friend refers.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for

the Acting Prime Minister. The notice of motion to which he lent his name this afternoon contains the words "that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially" and so on. Do the steps referred to in this motion contemplate either directly or indirectly the expenditure of moneys within the meaning of section 54 of the British North America Act, which of course requires a money resolution?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct, of course, for an hon. member to ask for a legal opinion, but I might say that this question and other matters can be more appropriately discussed when the motion is formally before the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Canadian government received any complaint from the United Kingdom through diplomatic channels to the effect that the flag question should be settled prior to the visit of Her Majesty; and has the Canadian high commissioner to London been recalled as a result?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. Since my hon. friend has referred to the Canadian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, I am happy to say that he is in our capital city. He was in the gallery until a few moments ago, and I am sure all hon. members are very glad to see him. I am sure my hon. friend knows the answer to the second part of his question without my reply to it. The answer is, of course, that the high commissioner is not in Ottawa for the purpose to which my hon. friend seeks to give some implication.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: A supplementary question to that raised by the hon. member for Queens, Mr. Speaker. I ask it because I heard the hon. member for Leeds indicate yesterday that the new flag has a tremendous history behind it. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is prepared to table, before the debate, a report on two aspects in connection with the flag design and development. I refer to a report on the history of the design as it has come forward, which would be for our general information, and second, can the minister provide us with a report as to the status of the union jack as a symbol of a member nation in the commonwealth of nations?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the suggestion made by the hon. member is one that warrants consideration, and I assure him that it will be given.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Mason Fisher: I thank the minister for his warranty. I should like to put the question more directly. Has the government prepared such reports on these two aspects of the flag?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, when this matter is formally before the house my hon. friend will see the great extent of preparation by the government in this important matter.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington Soulh):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that it is proposed that Canada have two flags, and Canada is-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Alfred Dryden Hales: -and Canada is a senior member of the commonwealth of nations as well as a member in good standing of the United Nations, which flag will Canada fly at the United Nations?


Murdo William Martin: It is clear of course, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion made in the first part of my hon. friend's question is inexact. The terms of the resolution are before the house and my hon. friend, I am sure, has read them. The appropriate time to ask a question such as that and the appropriate moment to respond to it will be when this matter is formally before the house.


Mr. Olson:: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon.
member for Medicine Hat asking a supplementary question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to get that information before, but the hon. member for Medicine Hat would not give it to me.
My supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or, to the Acting Prime Minister and is as follows: Is the government considering the possibility of discussing the resolution in two parts, so that the house may vote a first time on a distinctive national flag for Canada and a second time on the union jack, in order to avoid the dilemma in which the members of the house find themselves?
3682	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: This question was asked yesterday.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him if it was Mr. Smallwood who prompted the government to decide on two Canadian flags and two Canadian anthems; what influence did he have?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I think the time has come to recall to hon. members the fact that questions are supposed to be asked, not statements made, at the question time. I wish members would help the Chair a little bit in that respect.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We face the same old bunch, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Mr. Valade:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for St. Mary ask a direct question after the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who has been trying to get the floor for some time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wanted to ask this question respecting the amount-


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I have suggested to the hon. member for St. Mary that he allow the hon. member for Medicine Hat to ask his question. He has been on his feet at least ten times.


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order, sir. I believe that Beauchesne gives preference to any supplementary question-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Georges-J. Valade: -which is related to the question being asked. Obviously, on this point of order I should be able to ask my question.


An hon. Member:: Read the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I must tell the hon. member that I think his point of order is frivolous. I have already suggested to him that he ask a separate question. If he has the right to ask a separate question, surely that is better than a supplementary.


Georges-J. Valade: I want to ask a separate question related to a previous
IMr. Gregoire.]

question asked by an hon. member. My question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence.

Could the associate minister of defence (Mr. Cardin) tell us which of the two flags will be adopted as a distinctive flag by the three services, that is the navy, the air force and the army, or will the armed forces adopt two flags?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better for the hon. member for St. Mary to wait until the matter is discussed in the house.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question arising out of a statement made by the secretary general, U Thant, in Ottawa on Tuesday. The secretary general suggested that the United Nations was going to have to go back to those countries it had previously dunned and ask for voluntary financial contributions to carry on peace keeping arrangements. I should like to ask if Canada has been approached in this respect and what has Canada's response been?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Canada has already acted. Canada is a participant in the United Nations peace keeping force, and it is paying its own expenses.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the government has offered a special contribution to the United Nations for expenses in the Congo operations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When the secretary general was here on Monday I advised him that the Canadian government, in answer to his request, would make a contribution of $500,000 on a voluntary basis to supplement the special civilian fund for the Congo which had been set up on his initiative. The secretary general announced this contribution at the press conference which he held in Ottawa on Tuesday afternoon last.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Had the minister previously reported this to the House of Commons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had not. It was the secretary general who gave the press conference that information which Canada had

passed on to him. I think it was quite appropriate that he should have made the announcement that he did.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are familiar with the practice of getting government announcements from the press. Do we now refer to the United Nations for other government announcements?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend would agree that in many instances involving world affairs, the United Nations is a good place to which to refer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the House of Commons? Would you not report to it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if there are any other special contributions that Canada is now committed to, over and above her regular assessment for the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will take that question as notice.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I have a question for the minister of northern affairs, and I might say I am glad to see him back in the house after his Vancouver visit. The question is based on a speech he made before the chamber of commerce in Vancouver, I believe it was last Monday, referring to the paving of the Alaska highway. Can he inform the house whether any negotiations or discussions, formal or otherwise, are under way with the government of the United States for the paving of the Alaska highway? Is he in a position to justify the inference, as the press reported, made at the Vancouver meeting that the United States government might pay the whole cost of paving the highway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the instructions given me I suggest this is a question which ought to be put on the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: If Your Honour is ruling it out of order on the grounds of urgency-if there is an announcement to be made I think it should have been made-I wish to give notice that I would like to debate the matter at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The question was not ruled out of order. I suggested that it be put on the order paper on the grounds that there was not sufficient urgency to require an immediate answer.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: Very well, I give notice to debate it at ten o'clock.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister, but in his absence perhaps the Acting Prime Minister would take it as notice and have the answer for me tomorrow. Would the Prime Minister inform the house which provinces have replied to his request on the matter of necessary changes to the constitution in order to proceed with the Canada pension plan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the hon. gentleman suggested, Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBER OF KENYA GOVERNMENT

Paul Joseph James Martin: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will note with pleasure the presence in the diplomatic gallery of a distinguished member of the government of Kenya, Mr. Mungi.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister tell the house whether it is true that he has suddenly called off the federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs which was to have been held on Monday and Tuesday?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that conference was supposed to take place early in June but was postponed until October.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: As a supplementary question, can the minister tell the house whether this will have the effect of postponing a decision on the Indian claims commission until after October, or next year?

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no relation whatsoever between those two matters.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister tell the house why the conference is being postponed?


René Tremblay: To give the provinces more time to study the propositions that will be submitted to that conference.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
In view of the fact that the unemployment insurance fund shows a deficit of over $25 million could the minister tell the house what measures he intends to take so as to replenish the fund?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this on the order paper, as it requires a very detailed answer.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I ask this question on behalf of the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe), who is in Montreal with the committee on food and drugs. Is the minister aware of the fact that the International Harvester Company in Hamilton has laid off more than 65 employees because the company is not able to get flat cars to deliver its finished combines; and will the minister consult with the two railways to see if this shortage can be met without delay?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to bring this to the attention of the railways.



FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN INTENSIFIED WORLD CRUSADE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min-
[Mr. Rheaume.l

ister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government any plans to participate in the new and intensified world trade crusade by Canadians, referred to by the president of the Montreal stock exchange in Banff yesterday? If so, what are these plans?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry I did not hear the minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to take the question as notice.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is rather a question of privilege because it follows the answer I was given to question No. 834 I had put on the order paper.
That question was addressed to both the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson), and I submit that the answer is entirely inadequate, in fact it is not an answer at all, and now that this question of privilege is before the house those ministers should take a look at question No. 834 which is related to a typical case of patronage, as practised by the Post Office Department, and give it an answer that will be satisfactory, simple and accurate.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I apologize for not sending him notice of it, but I was prompted to ask it by someone outside the house, after I had come into the house. Has the minister received a report from the prisoner of war claims commission as to the disposition of the funds under its jurisdiction?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely the hon. member would be delighted to put this on the order paper.



TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZONES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East) for the second reading of Bill No. S-17, respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada.
Mr. G. L. Chailerion (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the four minutes I had yesterday afternoon before five o'clock I made a few introductory remarks, and for the sake of continuity I will refer briefly to the comments I made yesterday.
I said that this bill, No. S-17, was gutless, was a hoax and a gross deception; that it was designed for two purposes, one, to make it appear that the promise of the Liberal party and of the Prime Minister is being met and, second, to make it appear that the 12 mile fishing limit is being established by way of this bill.
I have here a valuable document. It is a page from the Victoria Daily Colonist of March 31, 1963. It is headed "The Policies of the Liberal Party". It is a full page advertisement, and as I say it is a valuable document and one which gets more valuable by the day as we approach another election. This document is a clear indictment of the Liberal party, containing as it does a record of the promises which have been made and which have not been fulfilled.
This attempt to make it appear that the promise regarding the 12 mile limit is being fulfilled is, I say, a hoax. Included in the promises set out in this advertisement is a commitment to establish a 12 mile limit for offshore fishing. I notice that the hon. member for Victoria is in his place. I remember so well how in the last two elections he and his friends accused the previous government of doing nothing about the establishment of a 12 mile fishing limit. The facts are, of course, that our government in the United Nations conventions of 1958 and 1960 tried to get United Nations approval for our formula of six miles and six miles. Indeed, it came within one vote of having this formula approved in 1960. In subsequent years our government continued its efforts to negotiate agreements with the other governments involved.
The Liberals, of course, said they could get this accomplished on a unilateral basis; they were the only ones who could do it. This promise, Mr. Speaker, falls into the same category as many of the others which appear in this advertisement. I might mention, for example, the reform of taxes. Well, they reformed them; they increased them. Then there are the promises concerning student loans,
28, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones national development, health care, rural housing, fishing credits, the improvement of mortgage loan facilities and so on. I could enlarge that list further if I wished, but I mention these things merely to point out that in my opinion the 12 mile fishing limit proposal falls within that group.
Yesterday I referred to the statement which the Prime Minister made on June 4 as reported on page 621 of Hansard. I quoted the right hon. gentleman as saying "With these considerations in mind the Canadian government has decided to establish a 12 mile exclusive fisheries zone-" and so on. The words I want to emphasize are "to establish a 12 mile exclusive fisheries zone". Then again on June 6, as reported on page 728, the Prime Minister replied to a question put to him by the hon. member for Churchill. The hon. member's question was, in part:
-is it the intention to ensure that by midMay 1964 Canadian fishermen will have exclusive fishing rights in this new zone?
To which the Prime Minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention that Canadian fishermen will have the rights that they are entitled to in Canadian jurisdictional waters by, I think it is, mid-May 1964.
It was because of this promise, containing the deadline of mid-May, that the government were prompted to introduce this bill at the present time. They ran into difficulties which they did not anticipate in their negotiations with the other countries, and this is their way of making it appear as though they had fulfilled their promise.
The second point on which deception is based is this. The government is trying to make it appear that this bill establishes a 12 mile fishing limit-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Precisely.


George Louis Chatterton: The Secretary of State for External Affairs says "precisely".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. That is what it does.


George Louis Chatterton: The establishment of a 12 mile fishing limit-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit me to say this? As the Minister of Fisheries and I have both pointed out, the bill before the house does exactly that. When the bill is passed there will be no delay in proclaiming that part of it which establishes a 12 mile fishing limit.


George Louis Chatterton: The secretary of state has helped me considerably, because he began his statement by saying "when this bill is proclaimed".


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that when the portion of the bill dealing with the 12 mile exclusive fishing zone has been proclaimed,

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones the 12 mile limit will be established forthwith and there will be no delay in doing so.


George Louis Chatterton: Clause 13 of the bill says that the act or any provision thereof shall come into force on a date or dates to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council. Thus no part of the bill becomes effective or can be enforced until proclamation takes place.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the law of
the land.


George Louis Chatterton: The minister says there will be proclamation soon. Maybe that is right. But even if the bill is proclaimed it does not establish an effective 12 mile fishing limit. All it does is say there will be a 12 mile fishing limit measured from the base line. But since there is no way, through proclamation, by which the base line is defined, there can be no 12 mile fishing zone. This must be so because it is not known where the base line is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a base line now, based on sinuosities.


George Louis Chatterton: The minister says there is a base line now based on sinuosities. That is true. But the 12 mile limit based on a fixed line will not be in effect until the co-ordinates are named by order in council.
Both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries have stated that the passage of this bill would assist the government in negotiating with the other countries involved on such matters as historic rights, traditional rights and treaty rights. My question is immediate; if this bill is to be valuable in this respect now, would it not have been even more valuable when negotiations were begun many months ago? Further, if this bill places the government in a better position to negotiate, would not the government be in a much stronger position now if it could tell us at least the co-ordinates for the major bodies of water in which commercial fishermen and others are interested? On the west coast, for instance, there is Hecate strait, Queen Charlotte sound, the Dixon entrance, and so on.
The secretary of state, giving evidence before members of the other place, said he hoped negotiations with the other countries concerned would be ended in the latter part of the year. If that is so, why could not the present bill have been delayed until these important matters could have been referred to in it? In that case we would be given something concrete to consider.
The minister has indicated that the bill will be sent to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. However, nothing at all appears in the measure now before us with

regard to a number of important matters with which the people in this business are concerned. I have in mind the co-ordinates on which the base line will be measured, the question of which waters will be considered Canadian waters, the question of the extent to which historic and traditional rights will be recognized, and so on. There is nothing in the bill before us about which the committee could ask questions or hear evidence. The minister might tell the committee what it is intended to do or what it is hoped to do, but there is no meat in this proposal for a committee to get its teeth into.
The minister has agreed that the bill will not come into force until it is proclaimed, and that the base line will have no meaning until the co-ordinates are made known. Why rush this measure through now, when there is so much important legislation on the order paper and when so many other major matters are still to be put down for parliamentary consideration? We are spending our time considering a bill which means nothing whatever.
We shall be able to go into greater detail at a later stage, but with regard to part II I have a letter sent to me by MacLaren, Laid-law and Corlett, solicitors in this city acting on behalf of nine international air lines. I quote from a brief or memorandum they submitted respecting this bill. These agents of these nine international air lines are concerned with regard to part II of the bill. As the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) said, according to the bill it is possible for instance, for the government by order in council to name some point on Sable island as one of the co-ordinates to establish a base line. We accept the assurance of the minister that they will not do that, but this is what the representatives of these nine international air lines say:
The present government might quite properly deny that they had any intention of using Sable island as a geographical co-ordinate. However, our point is that as section 5(1) of Bill S-17 is presently worded any future government could make such a choice by order in council without having to come back to parliament for amending legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is concern in their minds because it is possible for some future government to establish co-ordinates, in order to make concessions to other countries, for which they would not have to account directly to the house. I would appeal to the government If they will not agree to having this bill sent to committee before second reading so the committee could go into the whole matter of the principle involved, then at least at the committee stage the government should attach to the bill a schedule indicating the co-ordinates to be used to measure the base

lines for the important bodies of water. This is the point about which the people in the business are concerned.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to reply to some of the criticism of this bill which has been voiced from the opposition benches. At this stage on second reading we are concerned mainly with the principle of the bill, and the principle is certainly very clear. It is, do we want a 12 mile territorial limit or do we not? It is very simple; you are either for it or you are against it.
Most of the speeches from the opposition benches have criticized the details of the bill, which criticism would be more appropriate at the committee stage. As the minister has already said that it will be examined by the standing committee on marine and fisheries, surely that will provide every opportunity to bring out all the various points with regard to the details of the bill in which hon. members opposite are interested.
The criticism that has been voiced so far mainly concerns four points. The first point is that this bill is of no consequence; that it is a hoax, a deception and a pretence of keeping an election promise. That point was taken mainly by the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich, who has just resumed his seat. The second criticism is that it should not have been introduced until all the multilateral agreements had been secured. The third criticism has been that this bill gives recognition to treaty and historic rights.
All this criticism, with the exception of that offered by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), who replied to the minister on behalf of the Conservative party and who I believe was very fair in his comments, to date has been rather negative and there has been nothing constructive or positive. The kindest thing that I think can be said about it is that it has been based on a lack of understanding of the bill. Certainly that was very clear in the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, because my understanding of the bill is quite different from his in the way he outlined it to the house.
Most legislation falls into two classes. One class is called declaratory; it brings something into existence. The second class is known as enabling legislation because it authorizes the government to do something or try to do something. This particular bill is both because when it is proclaimed, or at least when a certain section of it is proclaimed, it will create a nine mile fishing zone adjacent to our present territorial waters. In the face of that fact, how can any intelligent person say that this bill is a hoax or is of no consequence? Our present three
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones mile territorial waters, with the exception of the Newfoundland coast line waters, are based on what is called the sinuosity principle, which means that they are measured straight off from the shore and consequently follow the indentations and contours of the coast line.
If hon. members are interested in knowing why Newfoundland is a little different in this respect, I can tell them that it is based on an interpretation by The Hague tribunal of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The treaty dates back to 1818 but the interpretation of The Hague tribunal was made in 1910 and established the headland to headland principle. Newfoundland, as an autonomous, self governing part of the British empire, adopted this headland to headland principle in defining its territorial sea and brought that principle with her when she became part of Canada.
To the extent that the section of this bill, when proclaimed, will establish unilaterally a fishing zone extending 12 miles off from headland to headland along the Newfoundland coast line, and 12 miles from land along the remainder of the Canadian coast line, the bill is declaratory. If nothing else happens, we will have established jurisdiction over the conservation and harvesting of our fishery resources in a belt of water extending 12 miles from land, and that is certainly a big improvement over what we now have.
But this particular bill goes further than that. It will give the government enabling powers, authorized by parliament, to do two things more. First, as I understand it, it will enable the government to delineate a new zone of territorial waters, based not on the sinuosity principle as at present but on the base line principle, which I believe is a variation of the headland to headland principle extended to include offshore islands. In the second place it will give the government enabling powers to delineate a new fishing zone adjacent to and extending seaward nine miles outside the new territorial waters. In other words the jurisdiction over the conservation and harvesting of our fishery resources will be measured 12 miles seaward from the base line instead of 12 miles from land as at present. This will enclose a much larger area of water and will also create new inland waters which will greatly facilitate conservation measures, particularly with regard to our seal fishery. It will also have significance from the standpoint of national security.
In establishing any delineation of territorial waters realistic people must realize that there must be exceptions to the general rule. Obviously the general rule of a 12 mile limit cannot be applied where there is less than

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones 12 miles of water between the coast line of Canada and that of a foreign country. A very good example of that lies near my own constituency. I refer to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which at their nearest point are only nine miles distant from the coast line of the Burin peninsula in my riding, the average distance between the two coast lines being somewhere around 15 miles. Obviously neither country can have a 12 mile territorial limit under those conditions, so that the sensible thing to do is to work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement.
The same applies to historic rights, which in the case of some nations are embodied in treaties and have become treaty rights. If I understand the position taken by the hon. member for New Westminster, which was described in the editorial which he placed on record yesterday and which he obviously endorses, he would have us tear up these treaties and brush them aside like scraps of paper. I do not think any member of parliament would seriously want Canada to behave in such a manner. In any case it is not very responsible behaviour, and is certainly not a good position from which to start bargaining.
I do not know what is the situation on the Pacific coast, but I can tell hon. members what the position is in my own riding. Certain European countries have fished in the coastal waters of Newfoundland, particularly those of my own riding, for over 400 years. They have fished there continuously. The French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon again afford a good example. The economy of both these islands depends largely on the inshore fishery. The French fishermen use the same inshore fishing grounds as the Newfoundland fishermen whom I have the honour to represent. They experience the same hardships and vicissitudes of life and make about the same kind of living, just enough to keep body and soul together but not much more. I would not want to deprive those St. Pierre fishermen of their historic and treaty rights upon which their livelihood depends. I would not want to take their bread and butter out of their mouths and the mouths of their children, any more than I want French, Spanish and Portuguese draggers to deprive my own fishermen, particularly in the Rose Blanche area, of their livelihood. We want to live and let live. We want to do what is right by them as we expect them to do what is right by us. If these St. Pierre fishermen did not have any rights I would certainly want them to have rights, because they are people. Their livelihood depends upon those rights, and people are certainly more important than politics.
The position which this bill takes is that treaty rights and historic rights do exist. The honest thing to do is to recognize this fact 

and get together and work out the best course to take. Let us decide what is the right thing to do in the light of all the circumstances for all concerned, and which at the same time will take care of the problems which are troubling us.
The fourth criticism has been that this bill should not have been introduced until multilateral agreements had been secured. Exploratory talks have been going on in connection with this matter for the past ten years. It was recognized ten years ago that the present three mile territorial limit was not suited to Canada's needs. Unless we show that we mean business by passing this legislation, these talks could very well go on for another ten years with still nothing accomplished. That would be an even worse deception than what hon. members opposite say about this bill, because we would have to keep talking and talking indefinitely without any clear achievement or sign of achievement.
If we really mean business in this matter, as I am sure we do, it seems to me that the proper thing to do is to pass the legislation which shows that we mean business, and then start the formal talks which are necessary to work out the problems connected with the establishment of the base lines from which our new territorial waters and the new fishing zone will be measured.
Canada has a good reputation among our neighbours for the way in which she has honoured and respected her treaties, and for her relationships with other countries. We want to maintain that reputation. In this regard I should like to put on record a paragraph from an editorial in yesterday's issue of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, which reads as follows:
In international law Canada has a good but not incontestable case for its actions. If a contest arose, they might or might not be upheld by the international court. Perhaps the countries affected will agree to Canada's moves, perhaps they will not; and perhaps we cannot afford to ignore their objections.
All of this, of course, remains to be seen. In the meantime the government deserves to be commended for its determination to press this vital issue forward.
Parliament should grant the government the authority it requests.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as for my own province and my own constituents, we have waited long and patiently for this legislation. We are happy that it is at last before this house. It has tremendous significance not only for the future of the fishing industry but for the security of our country. It has a special significance for my own province, where the fishing industry has played a dominant role in our economy for over 400 years.

It is even more significant for the people of my own riding, especially those engaged in the inshore fishery around the Rose Blanche and Port aux Basques area who year after year have had their gear destroyed and have been denied the fishing grounds by foreign draggers at the very time when the fishery is at its peak, thus having to remain ashore and watch themselves and their families being deprived of their livelihood. We welcome this legislation and I support this bill without any reservation whatsoever.
I want to close with one final word to the government. I wish to emphasize the need of urgency in this matter. Time is of the essence. Already too many long years have passed without action in this regard. Without detracting from anything that was done by the former government-and I am prepared to give that government full credit for the efforts they made in this regard and to say we are benefiting from what they did-the time has now come to carry this matter one stage further and not to waste time debating the principle, because this legislation is very urgently needed and the sooner it can be passed the better for all of us.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I start by making a brief reference to the closing remarks of my good friend from Burin-Burgeo. I say to him that debating this measure is not a waste of time. Precisely because of its importance it is most necessary to debate it to ensure in every possible way that the fisheries of our nation and the rights and opportunities of our fishermen are protected. That being so, in my opinion any suggestion that debating this bill is a waste of time is spurious and facetious, and the house should not be asked to approach the matter in that manner.
It is perhaps appropriate that at this time in our history we are now concerned, or will be concerned within the next few days, with two matters relating to our sovereignty. The bill before us is one of them. It involves the sovereignty and authority of the government of Canada in an area where they did not exist before but should have existed. The other matter concerns the attitude of sovereignty and independence which apparently has found its way into the heart of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and is exemplified in the design for a flag which he put before us the other day.
There is a similarity between these two matters. We are asked to think of the proposed flag as being symptomatic of our sovereignty, our national identity and the unity which exists within Canada. With respect to this bill we are being asked to make an
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones initial declaration to be followed by certain orders in council which again will involve our sovereignty, national identity and unity.
The bill before us involves resources of our nation, namely, those of the sea. It involves the application of sovereignty in relation to the conservation and protection of our fisheries resources. To my mind these two measures seem to go hand in hand. I cannot say whether it was by accident or design that the government saw fit to introduce them at this particular time. This is something that the government alone knows. But if it was by design, if the government planned to introduce into the forum of parliament and into the minds of the Canadian people the flag on the one hand and the proposal for a 12 mile fishing zone on the other, I think the government deserves to be congratulated to some extent because of the opportunity that is afforded to us to make a thorough inquiry into all aspects of the two measures, as those aspects are related to each other, because they involve our sovereignty and because they involve what many of us have been striving for for many years, namely, an autonomous Canada which manages its own affairs and does not have to bow to the desires or interests of other nations.
In the proposal for a flag we really have not a two flag policy but one might say more appropriately a two faced policy, involving the union jack and the so-called distinctive Canadian flag of which the Prime Minister at least is enamoured. If that is the approach to be taken it is also pleasant to realize that among the people of the province of Quebec there is a great desire for compromise on this matter, and that if the flag resolution on the order paper is accepted it will mean that in the province of Quebec there will be acceptance of the union jack as emblematic of something which is perhaps dearer to some people in Canada than to others.
I also submit that the bill before us is a two faced proposal like the flag and represents the attitude of a government that tries to do everything both ways, that tries to sell the Canadian people a bill of goods on the one hand and tries to protect the interests of others on the other hand, a government that tells us it is doing something for our protection while at the same time it is really catering to the whims and desires of some other part of the world. The purpose of the bill before us has been described in press releases and elsewhere as being to put into effect an exclusive fishing zone. This is part of the two faced policy because it will not be an exclusive fishing zone if the bill becomes law. There will in fact be the maintenance of the privilege which France and the United States have had for
3690	HOUSE OF
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones 150 to 200 years to fish within the proposed 12 mile zone and to continue to do so, not for 10 years or 20 years or some period at the end of which this would cease but forever. Forever is a blessed long time for these rights to fish in our waters to be continued. In this sense the policy is a two faced one.
On the one hand we are asked to adopt a distinctive flag emblematic of our feeling of independence and unity and on the other hand we are doing every blessed thing we can to preserve the conditions in treaties made with foreign powers without doing anything to try to negotiate any change in the terms of those treaties. It is claimed that the bill reflects a decision on the part of the government to take unilateral action, but again this is an indication of a two faced approach because the bill does not provide for such unilateral action at all.
One of the prime bases upon which the bill rests is the basis of negotiation with all the other countries that have or claim treaty or historic fishing rights in the area which we propose to embrace within the 12 mile fishing zone. I will not bother to read the quotation from Hansard, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has referred at different times to negotiations that are taking place. This, again, is an indication of a two faced approach. We claim this is a unilateral decision on the one hand, and on the other hand we say it is not because we are negotiating with these other countries. The Secretary of State for External Affairs shakes his head. His words are in Hansard. His words are there for posterity to see and for anybody to read. His words are in the reports of the proceedings of the Senate banking and commerce committee before which he appeared as a witness. He may shake his head, but the shaking of his head will not act as an eraser and rub out those words, no matter how rubbery the situation might be. These words will remain.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) have said they are negotiating with other countries. They spelled out these various negotiations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend's speech, but I know he is interested in this subject. With regard to the 12 mile fishing zone, there is no doubt that when this bill is passed that section of the bill dealing with the 12 mile zone will be proclaimed. This will represent the achievement through a unilateral act. With regard to the straight base line, that is a matter for negotiation.


Frank Howard: I do not know which coat the minister is wearing at the moment, but


in so far as this bill is concerned I shall refer to him as the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would just say that he has just proven he is the best actor we have ever had in this house, whether as prime minister or in any other position. His words will not cover up the fact that we are negotiating with the other countries in respect of this particular bill. He shakes his head again. As I have said, no matter how many times he shakes it, it will not act like the eraser on the end of a pencil. His words will remain in Hansard for all to see.
It is claimed on the one hand that this bill is designed to protect our fisheries. At the same time, both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries have said that never at any time was it our intention to interfere in any way, to abrogate or even change the treaties which are in existence which give specific rights to foreign countries to fish within this area. Never at any time was it their intention to do this. On the one hand they refer to protection to the fullest extent, but this protection applies to nations other than the United States and France. They talk about conservation in the same way. This is designed to conserve our fisheries, while at the same time they want to allow foreign nations to fish in these areas.
We have with respect to the flag a proposal for some national identity which I submit is a design or proposal developed primarily to suit one province. With regard to the 12 mile fishing zone proposal before us, it is designed primarily to suit one nation. In so far as the flag matter is concerned, may I just quote briefly from a letter which I received a few days ago and which reads as follows:
The plan for a distinctively national flag for Canada, under the present method of Mr. Pearson's is just another sop to Quebec. While no doubt he feels it politically expedient to defer to Quebec in most matters, it is getting to be too much. Why should a minority of five million, because of threats or other forms of blackmail, make 14 to 15 million others bow to their wishes?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please; I hesitated to interrupt the hon. member and I had allowed him to continue until now to make reference to a resolution on the order paper, because I thought he was attempting to draw a parallel between the situation before the house at the present time and that resolution. However, the hon. member will recognize he cannot go beyond the limits he imposed upon himself when he started to address the house. I do not feel he should go into the details of this other matter at this time.


Frank Howard: It was not my intention to extend my remarks beyond attempting to draw a parallel from the contents of the letter I have just read. This is indicative of the feeling of a great many people in Canada. The attitude of this government towards negotiation of matters connected with international affairs is almost identical. There is not one whit of determination or sand in the government to stand up-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought you were one of my admirers, and my friend.


Frank Howard: I am your friend and admirer. I would do what I could to put you in the position permanently which you now hold in an acting capacity. You see how much of a friend of yours I am when I want to do that. I would say to the hon. gentleman that he would be indicating far more clearly to the Canadian people the attitude of this government towards its relationships with other countries, especially on this 12 mile fishing zone, if he arranged to withdraw the proposed flag and substitute one which contained the stars and stripes. We would have a more clear indication of what this government is trying to do with the fisheries resources of this country.


Mr. Habel:: Would you go for it?


Frank Howard: My friend asks if I would go for it. This is not worthy of an answer. I do not want to be drawn into these snide comments by the member who continues his speech while in a sitting position. If occasionally he would like to rise formally I would be glad to debate matters with him.
We have before us a particular motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that the subject matter of this bill be referred to a standing committee. The argument has been made outside of this house, more than in it, that if the motion carries the government would be defeated and there would be an election. Why that was said, I do not know, unless it constitutes a threat of some sort.
My position with regard to voting on want of confidence motions that may be moved in respect of this government is well known. However, this in no way interferes with my feelings or attitude on a measure such as this. If in the process of voting on the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, it happens to carry and the government is defeated, that is well and good. We will at least have something concrete and worth while to talk about during the election campaign. The argument used that this would cause the defeat of the government is not really well founded, unless the government wants it that way.
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
Perhaps I could make reference to an action which took place last year in which there were two bills before the house dealing with an attempt to divide the Northwest Territories into two territories, one of which would be the new territory of Nunassiaq. It was after some extended discussion on those bills that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who then had the position of house leader, on November 15, 1963 moved a motion which received the endorsation of everyone in the house, because parliament was desirous to take that course of action, a motion that the subject matter of the two bills be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters for consideration. Then there was the important proviso:
-provided however, that despite this motion the said bills shall remain on the order paper as orders for second reading without prejudice to the right to make or proceed with motions for such second reading.
This is what we suggest should take place here in an equally important matter, in a matter equally important as was the proposal to split the territories into two, or perhaps more important because the livelihood, welfare and rights of more people are involved. We suggest this is the course of action the government should take, and that it should acquiesce in the request to refer the subject matter of the bill to the marine and fisheries committee, and keep the bill on the order paper so that we can come back to it.
I suggest this for the very simple reason that a course of that kind will allow the committee to examine this question in its broadest possible aspects because, when we are taking steps to declare a 12 mile limit, or any other mile fishing limit, we must take into account that various species of fish, notably salmon, do not know where that 12 mile limit is, and might occasionally swim outside it and get caught by fishermen of other nations.
This is of vital importance, particularly to the west coast. We should give the committee an opportunity to go extensively into the north Pacific fisheries commission operations and to make as extensive examination as possible into the detrimental effect that high seas fisheries in the mid-Pacific might have on the salmon stocks of B.C., because the salmon stocks are declining year after year, and because year after year fishermen from Japan are increasing their catch of salmon by leaps and bounds. Japan does not contribute materially, or what it does contribute is insignificant to the salmon stocks which intermingle in the mid-Pacific and north Pacific area.

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
The committee should be asked to inquire extensively into that to determine the degree, if any, by which the proposed 12 mile limit will be beneficial to the stocks here at home. I submit that it won't matter one whit but, if the committee is able to make an examination of that sort, it will be able to look at the possibilities and make recommendations about the content of the expected new treaty between the United States, Japan and Canada, and might be able to make some worthwhile recommendations to bring into effect the Liberal pledge of a few years ago to draw the Soviet union into the north Pacific fisheries treaty.
We should also examine into the fact that the Soviet union and Japan recently amended a treaty which they have between themselves regarding Japanese high seas fisheries on the Asian side of the Pacific, with one of the provisions being that two thirds of the catch that Japan makes of salmon on the high seas must come from the area bounded by the 175th west meridian, which is the line of demarcation in the Pacific over which Japan, up until now, has agreed not to fish.
What will happen as a result of this agreement between Russia and Japan is that the Japanese high seas fishing fleet will be moving closer and closer to the mid-Pacific fisheries and creating greater and greater pressures upon the stocks of salmon that intermingle in that area, and also upon the stocks of salmon from Alaska. The committee should inquire into the full implications of that, so that we can look at the fisheries question as it is, as a whole, and not at one little section, namely the extension of the fishing zones.
We also have the situation in northern B.C. where United States fishermen on the northern side of the Alaska boundary just sit and wait there for our sockeye and pink salmon to come home to spawn, and scoop up our home-coming salmon to suit themselves, without any of our fishery regulations having an effect on them. Partially as a result we find the fishermen on the Skeena river being confined to fishing for sockeye on the basis of about one day a week during the present season.
We want the committee to inquire extensively into that and see if it can make recommendations about treaties, or arrangements between the two countries so that our home-coming salmon, that do escape the high seas fisheries, are not caught by United States fishermen when they are nearing the spawning grounds.
Also in the north we have the extremely important question that some of the spawning rivers are in Canadian territory but their

mouths are in Alaskan territory. One such river is the Stikine. This is a matter which should be a subject of discussion between the two nations, and it is a matter which the 12 mile limit cannot remedy.
On the Atlantic coast we have the ridiculous situation where some of our fishing vessels have to go outside 12 miles to fish, yet we allow foreign fishing vessels to come in and disturb whatever conservation measures we put into effect.
For these reasons we ask the government to accept the proposal that we refer the subject matter to the marine and fisheries committee, and leave the bill on the order paper so that it may be dealt with at any time. Let us give to the committee the broadest possible scope of inquiry so that it may come up with recommendations that would be helpful and beneficial to our fishermen and helpful to the preservation of the fisheries of this nation.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) have indicated that the passage of this bill will strengthen their hands in the negotiations that are taking place with Norway, Denmark, Italy and the like. I cannot see how this is possible. All we would be doing would be to endorse the principles, or lack of them, contained in this bill and then give to a cabinet, which is weak and divided on this as it is on most other issues, endorsa-tion to negotiate as it wishes.
In the conduct of negotiations, if I were a member of a union and the Secretary of State for External Affairs were my business agent *-a highly unlikely situation if I had any part in it-I would not want him to negotiate on my behalf in the way he is seeking to negotiate on behalf of Canada and its fishermen, because what he is asking is for us to give him carte blanche to do as he wishes. What would be more strengthening to the Canadian government in its negotiations with the United States-and we should reopen the question of interfering with their historic rights-would be to place it in a position to go to the international talks with other nations and say, "We have got the bill. We want to do it. It is just sitting back home waiting for us to come back and report the results of our negotiations." The government would be able to use that as the strongest possible lever to obtain the greatest possible benefits from the establishment of a 12 mile fishing zone.
If the government persists in demanding that this bill be passed in its present form, and continues to support that demand by the spurious reasoning that it will strengthen its hand in these negotiations which, incidentally, look so far as though they have been carried

out with an extremely weak hand, we can come to no other conclusion than that it is the desire of the government to give the least possible protection to the fishermen of Canada, and the greatest possible protection to the privileges of others who fish in our waters.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In rising to speak briefly on this bill and on the amendment I do not claim to be an expert on matters relating to fisheries and fishing rights. Fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, all members of this house, no matter where their constituencies may be, have an equal voice when it comes to voting on measures before us. Therefore I do feel some obligation to try to understand what is contained in Bill S-17 and to express my views respecting it.
I find it very difficult to believe that we will be doing the fishermen and the fishing industry of Canada a service by killing this bill. I say this for the simple reason that while, it seems to me, all that is spelled out in Bill S-17 is not completely satisfactory, the measure must to some extent be a move in the right direction-the establishment of a 12 mile fishing zone. I think the government should be open and frank with members of this house before we endorse the principle of the bill. If the committee on marine and fisheries is to consider this measure, some specific answers will have to be given us with regard to the co-ordinates which will be setting up the base line, and we should be told in greater detail what is meant by respecting the traditional and treaty rights of fishermen from foreign countries, particularly the United States. If all the traditional rights and all the so-called treaty rights which United States fishermen claim can be exercised within the 12 mile zone and right up to the shores in Canadian waters, the establishment of a 12 mile zone would really be of no benefit to Canadian fishermen.
This is an important matter because, in effect, the bill before us amounts to an extension of the boundaries of Canada. Surely the government should give the house an assurance that it intends to make use of this measure to add some security to the rights of fishermen and the future of our fishing industry? As I said, I do not wish to speak at length on this subject. I am in a quandary. I am wondering whether we should support this motion that the bill be not now read a second time, but that it be referred to the committee on marine and fisheries and, to all intents and purposes, kill this bill and ask the government to bring in another, or whether it would be in the greater interest of Canada's important fishing industry to send the bill to the committee after second reading, where evidence could be heard as a result of
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones which the measure might be amended. Perhaps we should get an assurance from the government now that hon. gentlemen opposite would be prepared to add to this bill some of the provisions which have specifically been requested.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Might I just deal briefly with that point? The proposal is that we shall follow the course usually adopted- that we give the bill second reading and send it to a committee. The committee would then have the opportunity to examine the measure in the light of the evidence which would be produced by members of the government and officials. It would have an opportunity of improving the bill, if members thought it required improvement, in the light of the situation which would be revealed.
In other words, the course which the hon. member is suggesting is the course we would follow. The purpose of sending the bill to the committee is simply that the committee should study it and amend it, if that were thought desirable, in the light of the evidence submitted. What my hon. friend and I are faced with is the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that we should just let the bill stand-that we should not pass it but simply have a general discussion on fishing rights, and so on, with no particular reference to it. Nothing would be more inimical to the negotiations in which we are now engaged.


Frank Howard: That was not my proposal.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. gentleman referred to sending the subject matter for consideration. That would weaken the position of the government in the very important negotiations it is carrying on with a number of countries.
The course which the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) is suggesting is exactly the one which the government has in mind. Send this bill to the committee and the members of the committee will have the opportunity to make changes in it. We would have to examine the changes proposed and, of course, I cannot say in advance that we would accept them. But there would be an opportunity of examining them in committee, as the hon. member has so constructively proposed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I believe that what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just said is a lot more than any member of the government has been prepared to say up to this point.


Frank Howard: And that was nothing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am prepared to accept that this would be the proper course, provided the government can also give its assurance

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones that before the bill is brought back for final passage they are prepared to spell out the co-ordinates with respect to the base line. At the present time this important aspect is still left to the discretion of the governor in council, though this is a matter of great concern to the people concerned in the fishing industry.
I think, too, that the government should make one other commitment before we vote on this amendment. It should say whether it is prepared to accept some of the representations and suggestions which will be made in the committee respecting certain of these antiquated treaty rights. One of these treaties, I think it is the treaty of 1818 granting certain rights to United States fishermen, was actually brought into effect before Canada was even a nation. We know that some countries of the world have adopted wider limits to the territorial seas around their coasts. They have done so unilaterally, not taking into account all these antiquated so-called treaty rights. We know that Iceland and some other Scandinavian countries have taken unilateral action in this field, and in one case ships of the particular country involved took on the British navy in order to maintain its rights within the 12 mile zone.
I wish to be fair to both sides in this controversy. I think we can accept what the secretary of state has just said, namely that the government is prepared to accept some amendments before the bill is brought back to us. If that is the case I believe it would be better to refer this bill to the committee rather than to support the amendment that it be not now read a second time. However, I wish to say to the government that if there is to be no real benefit to the Canadian fishing industry or to Canadian fishermen by adopting this wider fishing zone, in other words, if most of the foreign fishing vessels which have been fishing these waters in the past are to be allowed to continue to do so, the bill would scarcely appear to be effective at all.
I agree partly with the hon. member from Newfoundland who spoke earlier, when he said that the only principle we are adopting at this stage of the bill is that of setting a 12 mile zone or territorial sea around Canada. If that is the only principle we are adopting at this stage, I think we can agree with it. But by saying that the hon. member is also saying that all the specifics in the bill are subject to amendment. We hope that is right, and if that is the case I believe that to refer the bill to the committee on marine and fisheries would be the better course of action to take.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak quite briefly in support of the motion to refer to the standing committee because I am convinced that those who have proposed that motion are taking the right course in their efforts to protect Canadian interests, when they ask that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the appropriate committee before the bill receives second reading.
Owing to my attendance at another committee in which we were making arrangements to be very generous with the United States with respect to our water resources, I was not able to attend the sittings of the house and listen to the debate on this bill, but according to my reading of the debate in Hansard there is some suggestion that if the subject matter of this bill is referred to the committee before second reading it would kill the bill. I want to quote a few precedents in that respect, Mr. Speaker, because I think that argument is complete nonsense.
I would refer the house to Hansard for May 14, 1946, when the house leader of that day, the Hon. Ian Mackenzie, referred a bill on reinstatement in civil employment to a standing committee before reaching second reading stage, with the concurrence of the house and without having the effect of killing the bill. I am quoting from page 4567 of Hansard for November 8, 1963.


Mr. Robichaud:: Was it referred to the committee by the government?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was referred to the committee by the minister of the day, yes. That was just about the time the Hon. Ian Mackenzie announced in the house that he was a socialist and he was promoted to the Senate about six months later. Then I would quote from Hansard for May 21, 1964, page 3447, under the heading "Business of the house":


Mr. MacNaught:: Mr. Speaker, If I could have unanimous consent I would request that you call item No. 31, the second reading of Bill No. C-60, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (captive sales financing).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: In order for this bill to be proceeded with now there will have to be unanimous consent. Does the house give unanimous consent to proceed with Bill No. C-60 at this time?
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it was the practice several times in the last session for bills to be referred to committee before receiving second reading. Last session a bill of my own was referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs for consideration before it received second reading. This is becoming the general practice, and I think for the minister to claim that this would kill the

bill is completely out of line with what has been the practice of this house for some time, and increasingly so.
I want to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that we endorse the principle of the bill if it passes second reading. While in theory we are endorsing the 12 mile limit, in practice I think my friends who are concerned about this question realize that what we are endorsing is in reality a three mile limit, and then provide some opportunities for U.S. fishermen to fish within that limit. I do want to bring to the minister's attention, as an old socialist and democrat, that the fishing companies in British Columbia-and, I presume, on the Atlantic coast to a similar extent-are either United States controlled or have very close connections with United States corporations and companies. As against that, the members of the unions involved are Canadian citizens who are trying to stand up for Canada's national rights. I think their representations with respect to the reference of this bill to the committee before second reading should receive greater consideration than the share capital invested in so-called Canadian companies by United States interests.
While this treaty points to fishing rights not to be allowed within the three mile limit, as I understand it, owing to the practice of using base lines from cape to cape in reality this treaty will permit fishing within the three mile limit at certain geographical points near the capes in question, and so on.
I want to deal briefly with the reference made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robi-chaud) to treaties. The Secretary of State for External Affairs speaks almost with awed breath when he deals with treaties of ancient history, and so on. I find on page 3660 of Hansard that the Minister of Fisheries had this to say:
On the Atlantic coast the United States has treaty rights in addition to claims of historic fishing, and for this reason alone is entitled to special consideration in any arrangements on fishing within areas that will become either internal waters or the contiguous fishing zone.
What is the history of the United States with regard to respecting treaties that have been signed on behalf of Canada? The government of the United States have not hesitated to violate any treaty whenever it was in their interest, and I can give the house proof of that right now. I became interested in this question when I was first elected to this house and began to study the Oregon treaty of 1846, which I was particularly interested in owing to the building of the Bonneville and Boulder dams on the Columbia river and the consequent impediment to navigation from the upper Columbia to the
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones sea, and the destruction of the heavy salmon run which came up into Canada when I was a boy. What happened on that occasion? We all know that the treaty was signed by the government of Great Britain and the government of the United States in 1846 and there were serious differences at that time as to the 49th parallel. It was decided finally, by mutual arrangement, that the government of Great Britain would secede all the land west of the Columbia south of the 49th parallel to the sea in return for the United States guaranteeing uninterrupted navigation to British subjects from the headwaters of the Columbia to the sea. I will deal with that point, Mr. Speaker, and refer to article II of the Oregon treaty which was signed on June 15, 1846, which reads in part as follows:
In navigating the said river or rivers-
That is the Columbia river:
-British subjects, with their goods and produce, shall be treated on the same footing as citizens of the United States; it being, however, always understood, that nothing in this article shall be construed as preventing, or intended to prevent, the government of the United States from making any regulations respecting the navigation of the said river or rivers, not inconsistent with the present treaty.
And then it goes on:
"From the point at which the 49th parallel of north latitude shall be found to intersect the great northern branch of the Columbia river, the navigation of the said branch shall be free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British subjects trading with the same, to the point where the said branch meets the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said main stream to the ocean, with free access into and through the said river or rivers; it being understood, that all the usual portages along the line thus described, shall in like manner be free and open."	'
That means that here is a solemn treaty in which the United States guarantees free access to the sea to British subjects in perpetuity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will discuss all these matters in the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not on the committee so I intend to have my say now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to stop my hon. friend; I am just saying that these matters which the hon. member is raising now, and raising quite rightly of course, are matters which we will be examining in committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do want to alert the minister to the dangers in the future. This illustrates what can happen with respect to a treaty. The government of the United States constructed the Grand Coulee and the Boulder dams without consulting or writing a line to

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones the Canadian government or any representative of it. When the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was the under secretary of state for external affairs, as the result of a motion for production of papers he had the records searched, and it was found that the government of the United States never consulted in any way with the government of Canada before violating this treaty by the building of the Grand Coulee and Boulder dams. So that the free navigation to the sea has been lost to British subjects who are Canadian citizens, and the salmon run which came up into the Arrow lakes when I was a boy has disappeared forever.
I just mention this to illustrate that we must not be too thin-skinned in this matter. The United States violated a very important treaty and took away certain Canadians rights without any reference to the government of Canada. Not a line was ever written. The government of that day either shut its eyes or was not aware of what was going on on the Columbia south of British Columbia below the 49th parallel.
On this account I urge that the minister give serious consideration to these past actions of the United States government, and that he be not so thin-skinned about historic rights and treaty rights which American citizens are supposed to have on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in some cases of ancient origin. I suggest that it is about time we stood up for Canada and do exactly to them what they did to us on the Columbia river. That is all I have to say this afternoon.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, there are just one or two points I want to make on this bill. First of all I should like to say that I am no fisherman, nor do I come from the east or west coast, but there are things in this bill which I hope the committee will watch very closely.
I think that one of the predominant faults of this bill is that it is giving too much discretionary power to the minister and the government. I well remember in 1962 when hon. members opposite took four or five days telling those of us who were on the government side that we were giving too much power to the minister of national revenue in connection with a bill dealing with class or kind. We were told that the bill was wrong in principle. Now we have a bill before us giving altogether too much power to the minister and the government.
As I understand it, the minister can move these geographical co-ordinates at his own discretion at any time and at any point. We will find fishermen fishing inside the line drawn between two co-ordinating points in an area in which they should not be fishing,

and they will not know any different because an order in council had been passed. Perhaps this is one of the reasons the government has not been able to get the consent of other countries in the negotiations they have been carrying on. Why should this government present to the house a piece of legislation and ask the house to pass it before these negotiations have been concluded? I have never heard of anything so ridiculous or so silly since I came to this house. These negotiations should have been concluded before the legislation was introduced.
This is just another example of poor legislation which has been introduced to this house before enough homework has been done on it. We have had experience of this with the redistribution bill, the pensions bill, the flag and the 11 per cent building tax. We also had the suggestion for two ministers of agriculture put before us. All of these proposals have either been withdrawn or revised. Now the house is being presented with another such piece of legislation, and I am certainly glad it is going to the committee where it can be examined most carefully.
The government say that air lines should not worry about this legislation. International air lines cannot fly over territorial waters. We might find the minister or the government using these geographical co-ordinates as a bargaining weapon, a means by which they will make bargains with international air lines. Altogether too much power is being placed in the hands of one minister. The Conservatives have always believed in a 12 mile fishing limit, but we want to approach the matter in a right and proper way. The Conservative way is to negotiate first and then bring in legislation. But no; this government wants to put the cart before the horse and bring in legislation for approval before negotiations are complete. As I say, I am glad the matter is being put before the committee so that it can have a really close examination. A principle is involved here, namely the granting of too much power, and I suggest should not pass this house.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose) moved:: That an order of the house do issue for the production of all flag designs or models which have been received by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet or the government, as models for a Canadian flag.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in leading oil the debate on this motion may I say I will be as brief as I can because I am sure many other members of the house would like to say a few words. I also hope that some of the government backbenchers will support me in this motion.
I introduce this motion because it deals with an important matter, the changing of our Canadian flag. I think all members of the House of Commons and the Canadian people should play a part in the choosing of a new flag before any action is taken. I was very disturbed at the way in which the government has taken action to bring in a new flag. I was always of the opinion that we lived in a democracy; but it appears to me to be pure dictatorship when one man, be he the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or the member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), chooses one flag from over 3,000 designs and then, by refusing to let government members have a free vote on the issue, places a gun at the head of the opposition and says: "Either you accept this flag or we will have an election through a vote of non-confidence".
The new design that the Prime Minister has chosen for a distinctive Canadian flag has three maple leaves with big, knotted stems which are not very natural. I should like to remind him that in western Canada we have no true Canadian maple trees. In fact, they do not grow west of Manitoba. I saw my first true maple trees when I came to Ottawa.
As I have looked at the other side of the house in the last couple of weeks I have noticed the absence of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve). I understand he is in western Canada. He is probably planting some original maple seeds there, but I hope they will grow to be tall, tall trees before the design presented to parliament is accepted by the people.
Another point I should like to bring to the attention of the house is that the Prime Minister in presenting this resolution-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him of the narrow limits of this particular type of debate. The motion before the house involves the question of whether or not the designs mentioned in the motion should or should not be produced. I do not think this provides an opportunity for debate wider than that outlined in the motion itself.
I would refer the hon. member to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Michener on February
Motions for Papers
8,	1962, as recorded on page 682 of Hansard of that year, in which he said:
Before the hon. member proceeds further with that line of argument 1 think I should say to him that my view of the scope of the motion is that it is limited to the desirability of the production of the documents. The motion is one calling on the government to produce the documents referred to in the motion. The question in issue is whether or not they should be produced.
Again, on November 8, 1962, as found on page 1427 of Hansard for that year, Mr. Speaker Lambert said:
I should like to draw attention to the very narrow limits of the debate at this point. The matter under debate is merely whether the document should or should not be produced.
In view of these rulings by previous Speakers, I am sure the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose will not mind my drawing to his attention the narrow limits of the debate before us.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just building up a case and I am coming to my point now. It would be very foolish of me simply to get up and say: Will you lay these flags on the table? I am just building up a case and I am coming to the tabling of the flags. I hope you will bear with me for another few minutes. I had referred to the two flags and I will now carry on. For this reason I put this motion on the order paper asking for the tabling of the designs. I understand there are some 3,000. Possibly it would be difficult to make copies of all of them and table them, but I would suggest that the originals be tabled. Instead of one individual picking a flag I suggest that after these flags have been tabled the Prime Minister and a select group of three or four from his party together with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and a select group of three or four from his party, plus the odd one from the smaller groups, get together as a committee and examine these 3,000 designs with a view to cutting the number down to six designs out of the 3,000 tabled. The six designs might include the red ensign, a flag embodying certain alterations to the red ensign, a flag with a beaver on it and a flag with a maple leaf on it.
This committee having reduced the number to six designs, I would suggest that we then call a conference with the premiers of the provinces, because in this way the people of Canada would have an opportunity to speak through these men and on the basis of their knowledge. The people of Canada would then have a chance to have some say in the picking of their flag.
I think I have brought my remarks close to the rules. I hope the Prime Minister will withdraw his resolution as he has withdrawn

Motions for Papers
so many in the past and give consideration to the setting up of such a committee to examine all these flags after they are tabled and then, through co-operation with the premiers of the provinces, give the people of Canada a voice in the selection of a new flag.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I can see the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) is annoyed that his colleagues did not rise to speak on this matter. I notice that the hon. member for Lotbiniere also seems to want to have his say about that and I am anxious to see how he will vote, considering that he has pronounced himself against the Queen. In view of the fact that the bill refers to two flags, a distinctive flag and the union jack to represent the Queen, we shall see how he will vote and we shall know then if he adheres to his principles-


Mr. Macaluso:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your ruling I suggest that the hon. member's submissions up to now are completely out of order and that his remarks should relate strictly to the motion before us. If he wishes to cast aspersions on the hon. member for Lotbiniere he can do so at some other time, but I think we should confine ourselves to the particular question before us because there are many of us who wish to speak on it in our turn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the hon. member's point is well taken and I am sure the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is well aware of the limits placed upon the house in a debate of this kind. I am sure he will stay within the limits of the question before us, which is whether or not these flag designs should or should not be tabled.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, you have given some latitude to my colleague, the hon. member who spoke before me, and I feel that, since this motion concerns the production of the flag designs received by the Prime Minister, the members of the cabinet, that is, the government, well, I feel I should be allowed-that is my own opinion-to deal with the flag in general terms and we would be anxious-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon. member that he is permitted at this time to

make general remarks on the flag. The only question before the house at the moment is. whether or not these designs should be tabled, and I am going to ask the hon. member and other members of the house to stay within those limits.


Mr. Nasserden:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely if an hon. member is going to develop an argument why the designs should be tabled he has to put forward reasons why this should be done. I believe that it what members on this side of the house are trying to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The
Chair is quite willing to accept any reasons which any members may put forward for tabling the designs, but in my view there is a distinct difference between a member supporting his argument and a general debate on the flag as entered upon by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. I think the best authority in this house is found in rulings which have been made by the house itself, and on a number of occasions previous Speakers have made rulings regarding this type of debate. I think every member will agree that the limits are very narrow, and the Chair will expect every member to remain within those limits.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about the proposed flag because the Prime Minister or cabinet members have surely received a very great number of flag designs. They have received so many, that they have chosen two of them in the same resolution or bill. Our country will be the only one in the world, Mr. Speaker, to introduce a bill concerning two flags. It is absolutely stupid-


Mr. Rochon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order;
will hon. gentlemen please be seated? I have given the house examples of the rulings made by previous Speakers on such occasions as this. I have others here to support the ruling which I am now making. I am sure the house will not mind my saying that I am going to see that this is done. I would expect hon. members to remain within the limits of the motion now before the house. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, personally, I am in favour of-


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. According to the standing orders, whenever an inaccuracy is uttered-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is not a point of order.


Auguste Choquette: -a member of the house must make it a point of duty to rise immediately so as to correct the situation. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm said that two flags are proposed. Such a statement is false and inaccurate. The hon. member has no right to make such a statement-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; the hon. member for Lotbiniere does not have a point of privilege at this time. If he disagrees with anything that is being said by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, he can refute that argument when his opportunity to speak in this debate comes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, you have allowed the hon. member for Lotbiniere to deal with a matter which you had earlier declared out of order. Consequently, do not be surprised if I adopt the same attitude as the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
As far as I am concerned, I am in favour of one distinctive flag, whether it has 25 or three maple leaves, even though I would prefer only one. However, I am opposed to having another flag which I do not want to see.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; I am afraid the hon. member is going outside the bounds of this resolution. I must point out to him again that the resolution before the house is whether or not the design should be tabled. I ask him again if he will remain within those limits.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am entitled under the Canadian Bill of Rights to be opposed to the government acting stupidly and thrusting two flags upon the Canadian people. I am in favour of one distinctive flag, whether it has one or three maple leaves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; on a number of occasions the Chair has requested the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to remain within the limits of the resolution or motion. I am going to have to ask the hon. member to do that.
Motions for Papers


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to co-operate, but when I hear remarks from government members who fail to take their responsibilities and to make known their views according to their conscience, who refuse also to oppose the adoption of two flags instead of one, well, Mr. Speaker, do not be surprised-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. On a number of occasions I have asked the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to remain within the limits of this debate, which is whether or not the design should be tabled. I fear that the Chair will not be able to continue to interrupt the hon. member and ask him to observe the instructions which the hon. member is now being given. I should like to read standing order 34, subsection (2):
Mr. Speaker or the chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in committee, the chairman shall report him to the house.
This would be a very unpleasant duty for the Chair. I hope the hon. member for Jo-liette-L'Assomption-Montcalm will be able to continue his remarks on this motion and remain within the limits the house normally expects.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, when a matter of principle is involved, I think that the members, whoever they may be, should be in a position to voice their opinion and I am quite surprised that following the appointment of a new leader of the Quebec Liberals, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has not protested against such a stupidity, namely the selection of the union jack as our flag.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am ready to take for granted that the hon. member for Joliette-LAssomption-Montcalm is not wilfully trying to stray from the limits of the motion. However, for the information of the house and of the member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm, it is important to draw his attention to the fact that there is no relation between this resolution and the one put on the order paper by the government in connection with the flag.
There is no relation, there is even no similarity between the motion now under discussion, which in itself raises only one question_


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not a question of privilege.

Motions for Papers


Guy Favreau: -namely, whether it is possible or permissible to have produced in this house the flag designs that have been submitted up to now to the Prime Minister or to members of the cabinet.
I am convinced that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm will realize that it is not a question of knowing how many flags are involved, but merely of ascertaining the possibility or legality of producing designs received from outside the house, and nothing else.
The principle of the flag to be selected is not involved here.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why impose the union jack? Why impose two flags?
Mr. Speaker, I want to co-operate, but when I hear remarks from government members, who are anxious to silence me, and I know you will stick up for-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has stated that the members on this side are trying to impose closure on him. It is the Speaker's ruling that he is contravening, and I want to place that on the record. It should be brought home to the hon. member.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member rose on a point of order but he was not justified in doing so.
I should be glad if the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Lotbiniere as well as others would tell us what they think about the resolution calling for two flags.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; the Chair has given a great deal of latitude to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and has encouraged him on a number of occasions to remain within the limits of this debate. I do not believe the house would consider the Chair has not given the hon. member sufficient opportunities. May I ask him once again, if he wishes to speak on this motion, to confine his remarks to the narrow limits which ordinarily the house recognizes as governing debate on this type of motion?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to discuss the motion within the limits of the debate, but, as I have pointed out, I have no alternative but to refute the remarks from the government members.
I know that the Speaker must be impartial, but he must also take up the cudgels for the opposition, which constitutes the weaker

party. The government has a greater number of members than the official opposition has. So, it is normal that the Speaker, while being fair and just-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: We certainly do not have any lesson to take from the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I cannot accept the statement which the hon. member is now making. It is the duty of the Chair to be impartial, and impartial does not mean favouring the smaller or larger groups. Will the hon. gentleman, if he wants to speak on this motion, please proceed with his remarks and confine himself to the motion before the house, which is No. 122.


Auguste Choquette: He wants the publicity. [Translation]
He is a paranoiac.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Lotbiniere and Cochrane (Mr. Choquette and Mr. Habel) spend their time making comments and I ask that the same strict limitations applied to me be applied to members of the government. In fact, having a greater number of members, the government would like to impose closure, to prevent us from discussing the matter.
Mr. Speaker, I have the right to speak in this house according to my conscience, and the Prime Minister as well as his cabinet members have received a great many flag designs. They received projects of all sorts but I wonder why two flags-including the union jack which I do not accept-have been included in the same resolution.
Moreover, I should like to know what the Minister of Justice, the Quebec Liberal leader intends to do when this resolution is introduced in the house, and what he said to the members of the cabinet. I feel the adoption of two flags, including the union jack, is an act of cowardice.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You are completely out of your mind.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have the right to speak according to my conscience-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order please.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I ask the cooperation of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. gentleman is again moving outside the limits of this debate.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, since my name was mentioned a short while ago, I wish to say one thing only-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Justice is rising on a question of privilege or raising a point of order. He must do one thing or the other, but he certainly cannot take it upon himself to rise at any time without reason.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm	mentioned
my name a little earlier and I must say that, as Minister of Justice, I would set a very poor example to the house if I were to discuss a motion which has not been presented to the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice could take the opportunity offered him by this motion for papers to tell us if he supports a motion to adopt two flags, including the union jack, and if that reflects the feelings of Quebec and Canada as a whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, we are not ready for the question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Spadina.


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am not through with my remarks and I should like to continue to deal with this notice of motion. I ask for your support, because I would not want closure to be imposed on us by the government on this matter. I am entitled to express my views.
If the hon. member wishes to speak after me, that is all right, because he has a right to do so, provided, of course, you give him the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member does have the right to speak on this motion, but in doing so I would expect him to observe the rules that normally apply to this particular type of motion. I understood the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) had completed his remarks. If he has not completed them will 20220-235
Motions for Papers
he continue now, but within the limits of this particular type of debate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the debate, you gave some leeway to the hon. member who spoke before me. He dealt with flag designs and you allowed him to finish his remarks. It is most difficult to discuss this motion within strict limits-


An hon. Member:: If you have nothing to say, sit down.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I request your support and protection. I can still hear members on the government side making remarks, and I would ask you to help me finish my speech on the motion under consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: May I
ask hon. members on both sides to refrain from making any remarks until the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has completed his remarks.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, there have been no remarks coming from this side except those from the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). They have all been coming from the other side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I hope the discussion will be more orderly and that members on the government side will co-operate with you, so that I may speak according to my conscience and express my opinion on this motion.
I know that, in that motion, the hon. member is asking for the production of the many flag designs which have come in, and I trust that all the members of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, received a great number of them. The Minister of Justice himself certainly received some from every part of the country, including his own province; I would be very happy to know how many were sent to him. It would even be interesting to see, Mr. Speaker, at the same time the letters accompanying the designs received by the cabinet members, in order to know the views of the Canadian people in this matter.
We all want a single distinctive national flag, and not one which would include the union jack-I hope that I do not exceed the limits authorized by the motion before us. Therefore, it would be interesting to have all the designs tabled in the house, so that we might know the proportion of flags containing foreign symbols, such as, for instance-

Motions for Papers


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member for Lapointe wants to speak after me, he will have every opportunity to do so.


Gilles Grégoire: It is a question concerning the United Nations flag-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker, I shall not allow the question of the hon. member for Lapointe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is not accepting any questions at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, what I want is to obtain replies from the members on the government side. Now, the hon. member for Lapointe does not mean much in this house, particularly in his party, since it will completely disappear in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, we would be happy-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think that in the end-


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


Gilles Grégoire: I think I will agree with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that there is no question of privilege since from silly people we hear nothing but silly talk.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I do not care to reply to the remark just made by the hon. member for Lapointe, since "what his breast forges, that his tongue must vent".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired and the Chair has made allowance for the interruptions which he has had. The hon. member for Spadina.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I ask unanimous consent to continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member ask the unanimous consent of the house to continue his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Closure. Same old gang.


Mr. Ryan:: I bow to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau).
[Mr. Pigeon.!


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is appropriate, as far as I am concerned, that I should read the motion which is before us presently in order to be quite sure not to overstep the limits suggested to the house by the mover.
It reads as follows:

That an order of the house do issue for the production of all flag designs or models which have been received by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet or the government, as models for a Canadian flag.

Now, the motion is for the production of what? Of all flag designs or models received by the Prime Minister, or the members of the government, as models for a Canadian flag. The first principle to be ascertained when we have a motion for the production of papers is whether or not such papers can be produced, in accordance with the rules of the house.
Now, I should quote from May's sixteenth edition, page 273, the following excerpt:

While the house has the power of ordering documents to be laid before it the papers sought should be of a public official character and not private or confidential.

The house is facing a very strange problem considering, first of all, the nature of the motion. The first thing to know is whether what is asked is the production of papers. If so, whether such papers are of a public, private or confidential nature.
In the first place, I asked for a report on the very nature of the designs submitted, and here is the answer given in this connection:

The 3,000 odd designs in the department of the Secretary of State are on various kinds of material including letter-paper, silk or cloth, heavy wrapping paper, canvas, hardboard, and plywood. In some cases actual flags were made up from bunting, nylon and other flag material. The designs range in size from a two inch by four inch pencil drawing to a five foot by three foot production in colour on hardboard.

It seems clear enough to me, Mr. Speaker, that many of these designs and models are not documents, but articles, as for instance a chair would be, and I suggest that the house has certainly no jurisdiction to order the production of articles which represent movables. I merely say that there is a serious question of whether or not those articles are papers, but this is neither the most important

part nor the most serious and definite argument against the motion.
The most important thing is first of all that the models and designs were, by nature, submitted in a confidential way, in the interest of ministers, for purpose of discusison in the cabinet, or for information and as suggestions to the Prime Minister himself.
But when I say that those documents are of a confidential nature, I contend that this appears in the act itself. Under not only the Copyright Act but also the international conventions governing this matter, it is clear that as soon as any design, model or work of art was not only conceived but transferred into a concrete shape, either as a design or an article, the person who conceived, draughted or created such a model has a copyright that nobody else can infringe.
In other words it is clear that if I, in the first place, were to create a work of art or make a design and if I submitted it as a suggestion, as long as I do not waive my copyright, as long as I do not grant permission to issue that design, I keep my copyright. It is not to be published. I am the only one entitled to decide whether or not the said design will be published or issued.
Therefore, if at least only the spirit of the law is applied to the things or the papers which the motion asks to be tabled, I say that those things which, because of their very nature, were submitted in a confidential way, as I said, only for the information of the minister or of the Prime Minister, because it is contrary to the law or to the nature of those things to publish or to reproduce them.
Second, if May's comment is applied to the principle I referred to a while ago, it is clear that such things cannot be the subject of a motion for papers, because the said papers would be confidential documents submitted for the information of the minister or the Prime Minister and not for publication or reproduction.
And that goes still further. Under the Crown Liability Act which, if I remember correctly, was passed by the federal parliament in 1952, the crown is henceforth subject to civic liability, the same liability for damages, as individuals. Now, if we decided or took the responsibility to publish or to reproduce the models or the designs for which each designer has a copyright, I say that we would infringe upon the copyright of each one of those who made the models or the designs and thus we would incur civic liability for the crown and we would be transgressing law.
Indeed the first right of an author is precisely that his work be not reproduced or
20220-235J
Motions for Papers
published without his consent, and the first transgression of that right is precisely the publication or the reproduction of the work without the consent of the author. I submit that it is surely not the purpose of the standing orders of this house or of any motion for papers to compel the crown or the government to incur a civic liability because of the breach of a statute.
That is another reason why I think we are not entitled to have printed and distributed hundreds of copies of the designs and projects which were submitted.
Moreover, what would be the use, for the purposes of the house as such-I would not say revelation-but of this reproduction? Would it be worthwhile to compel the government to break the law?
The government should take a decision as far as the design is concerned, from the designs submitted, and should choose one and recommend it to the house for adoption. Besides, the government is absolutely free to recommend some other design that has never been submitted.
Further, I would say that the motion under consideration at this time would not increase in any way the interest the house might have had in another motion that has already been tabled and which I shall not discuss, because it is not under consideration at present.
There is more; I must refer once again to the Copyright Act because it is essential, there is this: a model or design always remains the property of its author under the Copyright Act, unless the author himself agreed to the transfer of this property or of his copyright, or gave up his copyright in the work or design or in the model. Legally, the only consequence is that one and each of those designs and models remains the private property of the person who supplied it.
If we take for granted that it would still be documents, not only because the document is confidential, since it was submitted to the minister or the Prime Minister on a confidential basis, but it goes farther than that, we are simply and solely faced with articles which are the private property of those who submitted them for suggestion purposes. Now, it seems clear to me that the purpose of a motion for papers cannot be to obtain the production of what is the private property of a person. What can be obtained is the production of papers which are public documents.
I feel that if the confidence motion was to be eliminated, if desired, by saying: Well, if a flag has been submitted to a minister, it is because the minister is allowed to use it, nevertheless, the design or model remains

Motions for Papers
tile private property of the person who supplied it, unless a transfer was clearly granted.
Once again, therefore, a motion for papers cannot be used to tell the government: well, those items, those things that were handed to the minister or the Prime Minister, we insist now, even if they do not belong to the minister or the Prime Minister or if they do not belong to the government, we insist now that they be shown to the house.
I think those are extremely serious reasons taken exclusively, but of necessity, from a federal statute enacted by this parliament and which this parliament ought to be the first to respect.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask the minister if he will explain why this situation is different from that in 1946? The models and the suggestions put forward under the very same circumstances were made public by Mr. Harris' committee in 1946.


Guy Favreau: I am speaking in 1964, Mr. Speaker, under my own responsibility. The question you have to settle now-


Thomas Miller Bell: Oh, it is different.


Guy Favreau: I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that with regard to this matter there was a committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. I am not aware personally of the way in which the designs or models were produced, but at all events here we are dealing with a motion for the production of papers and we must comply with the rules which have been laid down with regard to such a motion.
If we accept the principle that copyright is vested in each of the authors of these designs or models, a similar matter was decided in the British House of Commons in 1884. On July 1, 1884, the British House of Commons passed the following resolution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why go back that far? We were dealing with 1946.


Guy Favreau: I am referring here to a principle which has been laid down by the mother of parliaments in a similar matter.


Mr. Kindt:: It's like oxtail soup: it's a long way back.


Guy Favreau: In the matter of legal or constitutional precedent it is never too far back, because age makes a thing sacred. Mr. Speaker, I will read the resolution which was passed by the British House of Commons:

Resolved, that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this house a copy of Dr. Crichton Browne's treatise on "Education and the Nervous System"-
It seems that this motion had a similar reaction on the opposition.
-together with a copy of his letter to the vice president of the council.
On July 3, the following entry appears in the Journals of the House of Commons for that year, at page 336:
Notice having been taken that the order of the house of Tuesday last, for an address for "a copy of Dr. Crichton Browne's treatise on 'Education and the Nervous System', together with a copy of his letter to the vice president of the council", related to a private matter, over which the house had no jurisdiction, and involved a question of copyright-
-it was ordered that the said order be discharged. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the British House of Commons discharged its own order when it was shown that as far as the object of the order was concerned copyright was vested in a private individual. The British House of Commons decided that this was a private matter and that its own order ought to be discharged.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds left at my disposal I want to congratulate the minister upon the admirable attempt he made to spit through the eye of a needle. As a matter of fact, he was speaking here for 20 minutes on copyrights and the like, and all about the secrecy attached to documents that were submitted. The first point I would like to make to him is that copyrights are not secret.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray), the number of unemployment insurance claimants; the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), consideration of estimates providing for emergency assistance with respect to the low water situation on the great lakes; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the detention of Mr. Harry Hooper for an undue length of time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East) for the second reading of Bill No. S-17, respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada.
Frank Howard: I should like to rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so because the matter did not come to my attention until the dinner hour. It involves the proceedings before the Senate standing committee on banking and commerce on Wednesday, May 13, 1964 and relates to some remarks of the chairman, Hon. Senator Salter A. Hayden. He related to the committee the gist of a conversation which he had with, as he puts it, a representative of the united fishermen and allied workers union and a member of the House of Commons. I was the member of the House of Commons. I took a gentleman, Mr. Tom Parkin, from the united fishermen and allied workers union to see Senator Hayden, the chairman of the committee and discuss the possibility of a delegation from that organization appearing before the committee later in the month. Senator Hayden goes on to say this:
I pointed out that with the convenience of transportation now there was no particular reason why we should delay until the end of the month, and they agreed that they could get a flight overnight and be here, and I told them that that should be their course of action for next Wednesday.
Later on, he says:
I had an assurance when these two gentlemen left my office last Wednesday that if they could not secure a postponement they would be here.
28, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
This is an incorrect interpretation of the discussion which we had with Senator Hayden, and completely distorts the truth. I did not enter into the conversation-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. friend is referring to proceedings in the other place. I cannot see how the hon. gentleman can raise, as he is now doing, a matter of privilege in respect of a situation that happened in the other place.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: And 14 days ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Fourteen days ago, as my hon. friend says. I cannot see how this is in order, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: I may point out, Mr. Speaker, it does not particularly matter if it was 14 days or 14 months ago. The hon. senator misrepresented the discussion that took place between myself, the person who came to see me and the senator. He relates that incorrect interpretation in a place where it becomes a matter of public record. I feel, then, I am duty bound, in the only forum I have at my disposal at the moment, to rise on a question of privilege and say that the hon. senator completely misrepresented the gist of that conversation and left a false impression with that committee.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to let the debate on second reading of Bill No. S-17 go by without taking a little trip on the territorial waters of Canada, particularly on the gulf of St. Lawrence.
I hope I will not get seasick, like the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and have to come back ashore to talk about another topic, such as the national flag. However, I can tell the house that fishermen of the Gasp6 peninsula are most anxious to fly on their boats the flag with three maple leaves.
Mr. Speaker, a very high percentage of the people living in coastal areas of the maritime provinces depend on the sea for their livelihood, and for a great many years fishermen organizations have requested the extension of the fishing zone limit to 12 miles. On behalf of the fishermen of my riding and on my own behalf, I congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) on the introduction of this bill.
The legislation under consideration is most important for our fishermen who have had, for the past few years, large trawlers which enable them to fish outside the three mile limit. The owners of such craft must be

Territorial Sea and, Fishing Zones given a wider field of operation, so that they may have their share of our country's resources.
We all know that Canada must respect the historic and traditional rights of certain countries, such as France and the United States. Those two countries enjoy privileges which do not hinder the fishermen of the Gaspe area. It is always possible to reach an agreement among friends. At present, fishermen -from St. Pierre and Miquelon islands have their home port at Perce and operate along the shores of the Gaspe peninsula without the least bit of trouble.
The amendment, which will be put to a vote this evening, provides that the bill be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, of which I am proud to be a member and the vice chairman. We shall be most glad to welcome any association, union or group wishing to be heard by that committee. I think it is time for the hon. members of this house to show our Canadian fishermen that we are looking after their problems by passing this Bill No. S-17 immediately on second reading. In my opinion, that would be the nicest gift to give our valiant fishermen to mark the opening of the fishing season. After the month of May 1964, it would come too late to be considered as a gift.
As mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs before five o'clock, this bill will be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries committee after it is passed on second reading. Therefore, we should make it our duty to vote against the amendment now before us.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the members from British Columbia were pleased indeed during this current week to see a delegation coming again from the fishermen on the Pacific coast *to put their story before us. They have been here before and we were happy to see them again. The delegation was comprised of men, and in some cases their wives, who are actively engaged in the fishing industry on the west coast; and accompanying the delegation, and forming a strong part of it, were a number of Indians from the west coast, many of whom derive their livelihood from commercial fishing, men who from early times have been competent and brave seamen on the coastal waters of the Pacific, who have adapted themselves to commercial fishing and who are well known in the fishing trade on that coast. Indeed it is heartening for anybody who looks at the problems of
IMr. Cyr.]
employing native Canadian Indians to see how well they adapt themselves to this basic trade on the Pacific coast.
As fishermen they have always had a moving story to tell regarding their life on the sea, and the problems and dangers which surround them. Not the least of these dangers is the very grave one of not being able to find sufficient fish in the course of a season's fishing to meet the heavy expenses of operating expensive fishing vessels, and the expenses of competing in the coastal waters of Canada for their livelihood, not only against fellow Canadian fishermen but against fishermen of other countries encroaching closely upon the shores of Canada. This, basically, was the story they wanted to put to us and have us understand.
It is not a new story in itself, for again and again this very competent union has put its story, and put it ably, in talks which it has had with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud). These union members have delivered briefs to each and every member of the House of Commons. They have visited on more than one occasion with members of the house to make them familiar with their case and their particular problems. They have a newspaper which is received regularly through the mail by members of parliament, a newspaper which keeps members in close touch with what they are doing and what they are thinking.
Therefore there was not anything new in what they had to say. They were bringing no new facts to light as they told us their story. They simply reiterated the very grave problems which they face. They told us it was their hope that their story would be told to the standing committee on marine and fisheries before second reading of the bill was reached. If this had been possible I am sure they would have told their story dramatically, and with all the emphasis which people, seeking their livelihood from fishing, can give to the expression of their problems. But I doubt that taking that story before the committee, and using the time of the committee to explain points that have already been made very clear, would have done much to improve upon the knowledge which the committee already has of the problem. Indeed, in doing so we might have run into some dangers.
It was made very clear by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), when he opened the discussion on the bill in this house on May 20, that negotiations and talks were already under way with other nations in regard to the effect of Canada's unilateral action in establishing the 12 mile limit, and that to open up these matters to

searching committee discussion, at a time when Canada was involved in delicate negotiations, would not be in the best interests of Canada.
Basically, what do these fishermen want? They would of course like to see all fishermen of other countries, even countries with historic fishing rights, excluded from Canadian waters and from within the 12 mile limit. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the problems attendant upon this will be clear to every member of the house. Such matters are those for most careful negotiation between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the secretary of state of the United States to establish how the problem of sharing the fisheries off the coasts of North America can best be handled.
An indication that this has been receiving the close attention of the government was given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he referred to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on his return from Hyannis Port when he said, as recorded at page 621 of Hansard for June 4, 1963, with respect to his discussions with President Kennedy:
I informed him that the Canadian government would shortly be taking decisions to establish a 12 mile Ashing zone. The President reserved the longstanding American position in support of the three mile limit. He also called attention to the "historic" and treaty fishing rights of the U.S.A., and I assured him that these rights would be taken into account. Discussions will be held with the United States with a view to determining the nature and extent of the U.S.A. rights and interests which may be affected by action which Canada is taking.
These negotiations are now in progress. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said on May 20, as recorded at page 3411 of Hansard:
This is what the government of Canada is now in the process of doing. We have already had three rounds of negotiations with the United States. In the last two months we have had a round of discussions with Norway, Denmark, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Japan. All these countries sent officials to Ottawa to have talks with us, and in our negotiations with the United States one of the meetings took place in Washington. I am hopeful that in all cases our discussions will work out satisfactorily-
Now, Mr. Speaker, while these discussions of such a delicate nature are in process I think the house will understand that the best it could do at the moment in the interest of the fishermen would be to give second reading to this bill, and thus assure them that we have taken one more step towards recognition in principle of a 12 mile limit, on a unilateral basis, to protect the fishing industry of Canada, and that we intend to proceed with the next step from there.
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise purely for the purpose of making a suggestion to the minister. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) and other speakers on the government side have suggested that they would be happy to see this matter go to the committee on fisheries-


Paul Joseph James Martin: To have the bill go.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -to have the bill go. We of course would like to see the bill go to committee prior to second reading. I rise for the purpose of asking the minister, who is piloting the legislation through the house, if he would be prepared either to introduce or to support a motion which would send the subject matter of this legislation to the committee, as we did with similar legislation a year ago? If the minister is not prepared to do this, I think we have no recourse but to vote on this motion. If the minister agrees to send the subject matter to the committee we are prepared to withdraw our motion and support the motion to send the subject of the bill to the committee. I cannot see why the minister should be shaking his head so vigorously. If the course we propose were adopted, the committee on marine and fisheries would have an opportunity to discuss the whole subject matter of the bill without being tied down to legislation to which this house had already given approval on second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister not prepared to send the subject matter of this legislation to the committee on fisheries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a suggestion which can be accepted. Nothing would weaken the negotiations which are now under way more than such a course. One of the reasons this bill was introduced was to facilitate and strengthen us in the negotiations we are conducting-so that we would be able to say we have a legislative basis. The course suggested by the hon. member is on that account, apart from other reasons, unacceptable. But there will be the fullest opportunity for members of the committee to put forward various points of view, to seek improvements in the bill and to seek to obtain further information from the government about the base lines. The information available will depend upon the nature of the negotiations at that time. I am sure the purpose the hon. gentleman has in mind could be served by giving second reading to the bill and referring it to the committee for the fullest discussion.

Division


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this bill will be sent after second reading to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. If I may speak on the main motion for a moment, I should like to make my position clear. I favour a complete and full examination of this bill in a committee where witnesses can be heard and the matter can be fully discussed. However, we in this party are fairly well agreed on the general principle of establishing the limits which are set out in the bill. We feel however that the bill has many shortcomings in that certain matters have been left out of it and that it has inadequacies. We hope that schedules might be added to the bill and that some of our doubts might thus be clarified.
It is for that reason we voted against sending it to a committee at this stage, before second reading. We feel, as I say, that the bill should be accepted in principle, regardless of the shortcomings to which I have referred; and we hope it may be amended in committee after full and complete hearings have been held, so that the bill will be satisfactory to everyone in the house.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we have no desire, and I certainly hope the impression is not left that we do have any desire, to disagree or quarrel with the decision the house has just made. We think it should have made a different decision, but it did not. We think it would have been the better course to follow if the house had made a different decision. However the bill is before us for second reading, and we are now in the position of saying that this is better than nothing at all.
We hope that when the bill gets to the committee this full, clear and deep examination which the Secretary of State for External

Affairs (Mr. Martin) has promised will take place, will in fact take place. I have noticed in the past that ministers of the crown have given the house similar assurances, but when the matter was referred to the committee the majority on the committee-this was when we used to have a majority on a committee- decided otherwise. So the assurances of the Secretary of State for External Affairs really do not mean anything because it is the committee which will decide what it will or will not discuss. However, it is good to have the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the record so that we can persistently point to it if any of the members of the committee try to stifle the examination or debate which will take place.
I should like to make a few remarks about what I think is an incorrect approach to the negotiations to which reference was made, and the course which those negotiations have followed. In the first instance the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) have each said that the basis for this bill is the brief which was presented by the Fisheries Council of Canada some time in January of 1963. I merely want to say that the fisheries council of Canada is not the only organization in this nation with an interest in the fisheries. In fact, it represents only one segment of the fishing industry, the employing section, and thus would likely take a biased and prejudiced approach. So I think it was wrong in principle to base the contents of the bill solely upon a brief presented to the government by one section of the fishing industry.
Second, I think it is wrong in principle to use the contents of that brief as a basis for negotiations. We have heard the cabinet say time and time again that they must not disclose what their position is, that they cannot make public what they are thinking about, that they want to approach the negotiations with the other nations with a strong hand and therefore they do not dare tell the parliament and people of Canada what they are doing. On the other hand, they claim they are basing their whole negotiations on a brief which is a public document. Thus, if that is the basis for their negotiations, they are in the position of only being able to retreat from that base and are not able to negotiate beyond the contents of that brief, because the pressures from other nations are directed toward making the Canadian government retrench and draw back from whatever position they may have started with, with respect to base lines, fishing zones or anything else.
Here are two things that are wrong: First, basing their approach upon the attitude of one segment of the fishing industry and, second,
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones saying that the attitude of that segment is the basis of negotiations, thus leaving the government in the position of only being able to
retreat, depending upon the amount of pressure exerted by other nations. They were wrong in principle in approaching these negotiations, because of the fact that from the very start they had given away two principal points. They gave away the opportunity to attempt to renegotiate the two existing treaties with regard to historic fishing rights claimed by the United States and France. It is a bad and terrible way to conduct negotiations to say to those with whom you are negotiating: We are going to give away some of our points before we even talk about these matters, so just discard this question of treaty rights and historic fishing rights and we will proceed backward from there. This is another opportunity afforded to other governments to force our government into retreating from what should be a firm and determined position.
Not only that, but in the course of this debate there came to light a most disturbing revelation. Let me quote from the opening remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on May 20. I do so in order not to fall into the possible error of misinterpreting what he said. At that time he said:
Canada has never published official charts showing the present base lines, but for at least parts of our coast the base lines follow the sinuosities of the shore.
In other words, the base line is measured from the high water mark. He went on to say:
Pending the establishment of straight base lines, the fishing zones will be measured from the existing ones. This is clearly provided for in the bill.
I take that to mean that from the present high water mark from which we now measure three miles we will measure 12 miles when the bill establishing the fishing zone comes into effect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nine plus three.


Frank Howard: Nine plus three are 12, so we will measure nine miles beyond the present three and we will have a 12 mile fishing zone following what is called the sinuosities of the coast or the convolutions of the bays, inlets and so on. Following that we will then have secret negotiations, or by decision of the cabinet co-ordinates will be established and we will draw the base lines and measure the distance all over again. But with respect to the initially established fishing zone let me quote what the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) said on May 21. As everyone in the house knows, he is a prospective cabinet minister inasmuch as he is now in that esteemed position of parliamentary secretary, and presumably he speaks
3710	HOUSE OF
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones with some authority. He pretty well reiterates what I have just said, but as found on page 3467 of Hansard he made this statement:
When this bill has been proclaimed Canada's fishing zone will extend nine miles beyond the present three mile limit. The function of this portion of the bill, as I understand it, is to establish the existence of Canadian fishing zones.
This is the important part.
Let me say here parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that it is my understanding also that since these zones are shortly to be moved farther out to sea in many places-that is, just as soon as the straight base lines have been defined and published-these zones will not be enforced in their temporary locations.
What sort of admission is that for the parliamentary secretary to make when the parliament of Canada is being asked to enact a law to establish a 12 mile fishing zone, namely to say that this does not matter because we are not going to enforce it in any event? It makes an absolute ass out of the law that we are in the process of enacting. I think this is a disgraceful state of affairs, and another revelation to parliament and the Canadian people of the attitude of the government toward this vitally important question.
As has been mentioned a couple of times, before we even started discussions we gave away our position so far as these so-called historic and treaty fishing rights are concerned. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made this as clear as it is possible for him or anybody else to make anything clear before the banking and commerce committee, when he said it was never the intention of the government to interfere in any way with the existing treaties. On the 26th of May, as found on page 3620 of Hansard, the minister referred to the historic fishing rights, and I should like to quote from what he said. Incidentally he is a very quotable person. At times it is difficult to quote him with any clarity because he is so verbose and clutters his thoughts with so many words that it is difficult to distinguish just what is fact and what is fancy, but in this case he was particularly clear. He said:
There is no intention to interfere with the treaty or historic fishing rights of the United States, with whom the particular negotiation has been put in question by my hon. friend, and there is no justification for creating the suggestion that anything involving Canada's interest stands in jeopardy.
That is as clear as it is possible for anything to be clear. The Canadian government had no intention and does not intend to interfere with the historic fishing rights of the United States. This substantiates what I said earlier, that the government gave away one of the points of negotiation before even entering into negotiations. This was substantiated by the Minister of Fisheries on May


27 and I should like to quote from his remarks as found on page 3660 of Hansard. Incidentally, I should preface this by saying that he was referring to the thought that retaliation might be forthcoming from the United States if we took a firmer attitude on this question. He said:
Seeing that the interests of the United States fishermen in the areas affected by the establishment of a 12 mile fishing zone and straight base lines are being fully recognized, and I would hope my hon. friend agrees with me on this position, it is difficult to see how the question of retaliation by the United States should even arise.
I want to come back to this question of potential retaliation in a moment, but for the time being I want to stick to these two quotations. They represent a clear statement by the two responsible ministers that the so-called historic fishing rights to which they referred are fully protected now, fully recognized. They are given full protection in the future, perhaps forever, but this is not clear in the bill that is now before us.
We come now to the question of the reluctance or refusal of the cabinet ministers responsible to disclose to the house what are to be the co-ordinates from which or between which the base lines will be drawn. If as the two hon. gentlemen have said the historic fishing rights and treaty fishing rights of the United States of America are to be fully protected, then why do they not declare now what the base line and the co-ordinates will be for the west coast? The United States of America is the only nation in the world that has any treaty or historic fishing rights on the west coast. There are to be no negotiations, since these rights are fully recognized and fully established. What is wrong now with saying, since these negotiations are completed, here are the base lines? Then, at least parliament will be taken into the confidence of the two hon. gentlemen about this phase of it.
Perhaps they are going to make more concessions. This is a very incisive question. What sort of concessions are they going to make to the United States, to their friends south of the line? Why the refusal to disclose this information when it cannot possibly affect any negotiations because each of the ministers has said the position of the United States on the west coast will be fully recognized?
I can predict, I think, now what will happen. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robi-chaud) tried unsuccessfully yesterday to mislead the house into thinking that Dixon entrance, Hecate strait and Queen Charlotte sound would be enclosed within the lines. I will tell you what is likely to be the case. Obviously, because of the refusal to disclose at this time where the base line is going to

be drawn out there, the base line from headland to headland will be drawn in such a way that Hecate strait, Dixon entrance and Queen Charlotte sound will be left as international waters. Is there any reason why the minister cannot say now that the situation will be otherwise? We would certainly like to hear it. I think at this juncture, before the house is asked to pass this bill in principle, this is the sort of information that should be given to us.
Following their argument-I think it is an illogical one-but following their argument they may have a case for refusing to disclose this information so far as the east coast is concerned. They claim to be dealing with Denmark, Great Britain, Italy, Norway and other countries in connection with these so-called historic fishing rights. They may not want to disclose their hand at this stage, although I fail to see why. They disclose their hand to the United States and they give way on all points even before the negotiations take place.
This question is of vital importance to west coast fishermen, vitally important to the preservation and development of our fisheries out there. The refusal to disclose this information, unless there is a clear, adequate reason given for that refusal, would be tantamount to the admission that they intend to give more and more before the pressure of their very friendly neighbours, as they call them.
Before I sit down, I should like to make a reference to the thought expressed that there might be economic retaliation by the United States against our fishery exports to that country. I believe these exports total in the neighbourhood of $100 million per year in value. In the first place, I cannot see why there would be retaliation because each of the ministers has disclosed that the treaty rights and historic fishing rights of the United States are completely recognized. Why raise the question of potential retaliation?
In any event, let us look at a few statistics which I was able to obtain today from a United States publication of the department of interior, fish and wildlife service, bureau of commercial fisheries, entitled, "Fisheries of the United States for 1962." This publication came out in April of this year. Incidentally, these statistics are substantiated by our own statistics, but I thought that inasmuch as the United States are involved we should look at what they have to say on the question. The United States, from its own waters, cannot at this stage and have not been able for some years now, to catch sufficient fish for their own domestic consumption. There is some argument about this, depending upon whether you take into account their exports 20220-236i
28, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones and balance them against their imports or whether you do not take that into account. There is some argument as to what this catch is in relation to consumption, but it ranges between one half and two thirds. No matter how you interpret the statistics, the United States cannot possibly obtain from its own waters more than two thirds of its domestic requirements. It must import at least one third which, in poundage value of edible fish products, is in the neighbourhood of 1.2 billion pounds and in non-edible fish products such as meals and oils, is in the neighbourhood of 75 million pounds, with a value of about $500 million.
For a number of years the United States has been in a position whereby they must import this amount of fish. One could say that if we get firm with them they may cut off importation of our fish and buy it from some other nation. But what sort of friends are they if they do that? We have been told by everybody from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) down, and from the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) up, that they are the greatest bosom pals we have in the whole world; that the United States government are our friends and allies, and that they bestow love and affection upon us. What sort of friends are they if we as a small nation, one tenth the size in wealth and population, exert a little bit of national sovereignty for our self-preservation economically and for the preservation of our fisheries, and they turn around and wreak some economic retaliation against us? I just do not believe they would, or else the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been telling us a different story about this love and tenderness which exists between us and the United States.
I merely point out this one fact, if it is necessary, to show it clearly; and I do not know any other way to put it except to say in a rather blunt fashion that the government of Canada, in this as in other instances, obviously has not the intestinal fortitude necessary to protect fully the interests of the fisheries people in Canada.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very limited this evening. However, I feel there are several observations I should make at this particular stage of the debate.
I abstained from the vote tonight, not because I am not in sympathy with the views of the united fishermen and allied workers union but because I was not in agreement with either the position of the government or the position that was indicated by the motion to refer that was voted upon tonight.

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
Perhaps I could put it in a more positive way. I agree with the main principles enunciated by the fishermen's union. On the other hand, I do not appreciate the adamant stand that has been taken by the government in regard to these essential matters. I believe we have now reached the point, if this bill passes second reading tonight, where the onus rests on the government to hear the representatives of the fishermen themselves and to give them the fullest opportunity to present their case before the standing committee on marine and fisheries.
The union feels, and I believe it has right to feel, that it has been given the run-around so far as the work of the committee on marine and fisheries is concerned. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister. Other members have brought it to his attention, and the union feels that on a number of occasions promises have been made-sacred promises-by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), but he has not yet come through with them. Therefore they feel in this particular matter that they are in the position where they can hardly trust the Minister of Fisheries.
The promise was made by the minister to the effect that this bill would be referred to the committee after second reading. I wonder why the fishermen's union did not have the opportunity of bringing its case before the committee months ago. I do not think there was anything to hinder the setting up of that committee and allowing the representatives of the fishermen to appear and discuss, at least in general terms, the basic problems that are facing them at the present time. They would not have had the bill before them. They would not have had any resolution before them, but at least they would have had the opportunity of presenting their case before the committee so that every member of that committee would be well versed on the views they hold on this matter.
When I spoke on this subject a few days ago the minister interjected to say they had already secured the views of the fishermen's union and that a very substantial brief was presented at the conference held some time ago. However, I insist that is far less satisfactory than having the men appear before the committee on marine and fisheries where members of that committee could question the representatives of the fishermen and could have a frank discussion on these various matters.
The minister, and I believe also the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), indicated that it would not be in the best interests of the negotiations currently being undertaken to have this matter submitted to the committee before second reading


of the bill. There may be some validity to that argument at the present time but, as 1 said before, I do not see why the opportunity could not have been given to the fishermen's union to present their case before the committee several months ago.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that when this matter does go before the committee there will not be any attempt on the part of the government, or on the part of government members, to limit the debate, discussion and expressions before that committee on these various matters that have been referred to tonight by the hon. member for Skeena Mr. (Howard), such as historic fishing rights, base lines and all the other relevant factors. I trust that the united fishermen and allied workers union and others representing fishermen will then take full advantage of pleading their case before that important committee of the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Just in order to keep the record straight, Mr. Speaker, I think I should reply very briefly to the statement made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) to the effect that I have not kept my promise to the united fishermen and allied workers union that they would be given a chance to appear before the standing committee on marine and fisheries.
Just a few weeks after I assumed responsibility as Minister of Fisheries, on my first visit to the west coast, I met with representatives of the union and I made a definite commitment that the question of the north Pacific treaty would be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries before ratification or acceptance by the government. I had no way of knowing at that time that we would have three or four phases of negotiations. Later, I made a similar statement in the house. I repeated in the house what I told representatives of the united fishermen and allied workers union, that once the negotiations had been completed on the north Pacific fisheries treaty, the standing committee on marine and fisheries would be convened and the question brought before it before acceptance or ratification by the government.
This is the promise which I made to the united fishermen and allied workers union, and I am sure the hon. member will understand that while the negotiations are under way, while we are on the eve of getting agreement on this treaty, it would not be proper to bring the matter before the committee and disclose the details of negotiations which are taking place, not only between two countries but between Japan, the United States and Canada.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising to ask a question? He has already spoken on the motion now before the house, and of course cannot speak twice.


Alexander Bell Patterson: 1 realize that, but I would like to ask the minister if he feels he has fully fulfilled his promises to the fishermen in regard to the opportunity of presenting various matters before the standing committee on marine and fisheries-not just one particular one, but several? I would like to ask the minister if he feels he has fully met his promises to the fishermen's union?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, when Bill S-17 will be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries that group will be given full opportunity to express its views and, if it is decided that during the present session the estimates of the Department of Fisheries be brought before that committee, there again they will be given the opportunity to present their views. But once again I want to emphasize the point that we cannot bring the matter of the north Pacific treaty before the committee when negotiations are under way.


Alexander Bell Patterson: May I ask the minister why it was not possible to have a meeting of the standing committee on marine and fisheries some months ago, when the fishermen could have presented their views in regard to such matters as the 12 mile limit, base lines and the other things that are before us at present, at a time before the negotiations actually started?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Well, Mr. Speaker, at the last session it was decided that the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, for obvious reasons, would not be brought before the committee. There were no matters to refer to the committee at the time, but now that we have this Bill S-17, and when the north Pacific negotiations are completed, we will have definite matters to bring before the committee. Again I want to stress the point that this group will be given the fullest opportunity to express its views.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I could ask the minister before he concludes whether it is the intention of the government to proceed to move a motion in this house to refer the estimates of the Department of Fisheries to the fisheries committee this session.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This matter is under consideration. The chairman of the standing committee on marine and fisheries was in to see me a few days ago and I told him that I hoped to be able to make a decision on this matter very soon.
National Housing Act


Alexander Bell Patterson: Is the government prepared to set out the base lines and the co-ordinates for the base lines before this bill is brought back before the house?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is a decision which will be taken when the committee is called together.


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


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954,
(a)	to provide further assistance to provinces and municipalities carrying out urban renewal programs by authorizing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") to make contributions and loans to provinces or municipalities to assist them in meeting the costs of such programs, and for this purpose to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars;
(b)	to authorize the corporation to make loans and to insure loans made by approved lenders to owners of existing houses in areas included in urban renewal programs;
(c)	to authorize the corporation to make loans and contributions to provincially or municipally owned housing agencies for constructing or acquiring public housing projects and operating such projects, and to authorize the corporation to contribute a portion of the operating losses on any such projects that provide subsidized housing accommodation to individuals or families of low income;
(d)	to permit federal-provincial public housing projects to include existing housing and hostel or dormitory type housing accommodation;
(e)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to non-profit organizations to assist in the acquisition or construction of housing accommodation for individuals or families of low income;
(f)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to co-operative associations and charitable corporations to assist in the construction of accommodation for university students and their families and to increase from one hundred million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars the maximum amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for this purpose;
(g)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to provinces to assist in the construction or expansion of sewage treatment projects and to authorize the corporation to forgive repayment of twenty five per cent of the principal and interest on any loans made to provinces or municipalities for this purpose in respect of work completed by March 31, 1967;
(h)	to increase from two billion dollars to two and one half billion dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for direct loans by the corporation;
(i)	to provide for the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund out of which amounts hot exceeding in the aggregate one

National Housing Act
hundred million dollars may be advanced to the corporation for the making of loans to the holders of mortgages issued in respect of loans insured under the act and for the purchase by the corporation of mortgages issued to secure such loans;
(3) to increase the loan ratio for insured loans made to home owners and builders; and
(k) to provide further for certain changes in the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This is my first comprehensive statement in this chamber as the minister responsible tor housing. If for no other reason, the social and economic implications to Canada of this very important subject would make it an occasion of great significance to me. It is also the government's first comprehensive statement with respect to housing.
The resolution is the forerunner of amendments to the National Housing Act which represent a basic change in our concept, perhaps I should say a completely fresh approach, to some of the most vexing housing problems facing the country.
The proposed amendments will introduce a new flexibility into our National Housing Act, both as to objectives and as to ways in which we should strive to attain these objectives. They will, I hope, influence for the better the lives of many thousands of Canadians, in cities and towns, both large and small in all parts of Canada. Here in the resolution, and of course, in the bill to follow, is the promise of new hope for lower income families, for elderly persons and for those who are forced to raise their children in slums or near slums. There is also an added measure of help for university students. Finally, there are broad changes designed to assist provinces and, through them, the municipalities, to meet some of their housing and other development needs.
In view of what I have said, the duty I am called upon to perform tonight carries with it a double satisfaction. It also carries with it an element of sorrow, since both the resolution and the amending bill represent years of thought, work and effort on the part of our former colleague in this house, the minister of national revenue at the time of his death, the late member for Nipissing.
The late Jack Garland was a member of this house for more than 14 years. During a large part of that time he was the opposition critic on housing matters. Throughout the whole of his adult life he had a vital interest in this subject and he acquired a vast knowledge of Canada's housing needs. Consequently, I am sure it did not surprise members of this house to learn that when he became a minister of the crown he was given

an opportunity to implement many of the policies and views that he had expressed when he sat on the opposition benches. The resolution now being considered and the bill to follow are largely Jack Garland's brainchild and I know I voice the sorrow and sincere regret of all hon. members that Jack Garland himself is not here to introduce this resolution and speak in support of it.
I should also like at this time to express appreciation of the work done on this particular resolution and on the bill to follow by another great Canadian, the late president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Dr. Stewart Bates, whose death earlier this week came as a shock to us all. As hon. members are no doubt aware, Dr. Bates served his adopted homeland, Canada, with brilliance and distinction both before and after he resigned as professor of commerce at Dalhousie University early in the war years to assume an important post in the federal Department of Fisheries. After three years with the fisheries department he became deputy director general of economic research in the department of reconstruction and supply, and one year later he became director general of that branch. In 1947, Dr. Bates was appointed deputy minister of fisheries. I could not help but think of him, as I listened to the debate which took place earlier this evening and this afternoon. He made a really great contribution to the department of fisheries, in working out a series of international fishery agreements, one of which was with the north Atlantic nations while the other-the Minister of Fisheries referred to it a few minutes ago-concerned the north Pacific.
Dr. Bates was appointed president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in December, 1954 and he held that office until his unexpected death on the evening of Sunday last. The late Dr. Bates worked closely with my predecessor, Mr. Garland, during the eleven months in which the latter was the responsible minister for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and he worked closely with me during the period which followed. I had hoped that Dr. Bates would be with me on the floor of the house, when the bill comes up for discussion. I know I voice the feelings of the sorrow and the sincere regret of all members of the house that he is not here to participate in these proceedings.
Looking back over the list of distinguished Canadians who preceded me as minister responsible for housing, I find that none of them was usually given to general statements about the basic questions of federal housing policy. Perhaps I have a less philosophical mind than most of my predecessors, but I

would find it extremely difficult to consider the details of the proposed legislation, without first giving some thought to the general state of housing in Canada and to the purposes which I, as a member of the government, believe we should be trying to achieve through our housing legislation.
Earlier this month I had the pleasure of participating in the opening ceremony of a federal-provincial housing project in the city of Saskatoon. While in that city I visited two other projects that were largely financed by the federal government, with a very substantial contribution from the Saskatchewan government. Since taking over as the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing, I have had occasion to visit many other housing projects in different parts of Canada, including Sarnia, Winnipeg, Vancouver and other cities, and I have been impressed by what I have seen in all these communities. But I have been even more impressed with the improvements that have taken place during the last 15 years in the design and construction of housing projects with which C.M.H.C. has been associated.
On June 26, the first federal-provincial housing project associated with urban renewal will be opened in the city of Winnipeg. It will be Winnipeg's very first urban renewal project. His Worship Mayor Juba has proposed that I encourage members of this house, who may find it possible to be in Winnipeg on June 26 to attend the opening ceremonies. The ceremonies will commence at eleven o'clock on the morning of Friday, June 26.
The federal government, the provincial government and the city of Winnipeg will be joint hosts on that occasion. The ceremony will be followed by a luncheon at the Fort Garry hotel, and members of this house and members of the other place, who may be in Winnipeg on that occasion are cordially invited to the ceremonies and to the luncheon at the Fort Garry hotel. If any hon. member can make it, if he will give his name to me, to my office or to my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet), we will see to it that the formal invitations to the ceremonies and to the luncheon are sent to all interested members.
Mr. Chairman, by any international standard Canadians generally are well housed. We have a population of approximately 19 million, housed in 4.8 million occupied housing units. Seven out of ten of these dwellings are relatively new, having been built since 1920. Only 5 or 6 per cent of these houses are described in the 1961 census as being in need of major repair. Ninety per cent of our Canadian families have the exclusive use of their own homes.
National Housing Act
Canada's population is increasing at the rate of about 400,000 persons per annum. This increase in population is accompanied, as all hon. members know, by a decline in farm population; thus the increase in other areas is such that as a nation we need an output of roughly 125,000 dwellings per annum in our cities and towns-not in the rural areas- merely to keep abreast of population growth in housing requirements.
Over the past ten years new housing and the repair and modernization of existing houses certainly has been sufficient to bring about a real improvement in the over-all housing situation in Canada. The number of doubled-up families has gone down by 150,000 during the period to which I have referred. Occupied dwellings in which you can get hot and cold running water has been increased during the same period by half a million. Between 1951 and 1961, there was a decline, I believe, of 400,000 or more in the number of occupied dwellings lacking modern toilet facilities. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, despite the generally high standard of housing conditions in Canada, and despite the recent and continuing improvement in the over-all situation, there are still far too many Canadians living in desperately inadequate and overcrowded housing units. Close to half a million families are still sharing accommodation with others, and one fifth of our dwellings in Canada still lack hot and cold water and modern bathing facilities. Fifteen per cent of our housing units or dwellings in Canada lack modern toilet facilities. The lack of amenities, as you might expect, is more pronounced in rural than in urban areas, but congestion in the cities, in the urban areas, is great, and even there the lack of amenities is shocking.
I think we can all get pleasure and satisfaction out of the very high-unusually high -average standard of housing in Canada, and we certainly can rejoice in the improvements to which I have referred. We can be gratified with the knowledge that assistance of one kind or another under our national housing acts has played a very considerable part in achieving our present standard and in improving it from year to year. But, Mr. Chairman, while we are in a mood of selfcongratulation let us not fail to accept some responsibility for the misery that persists in the slum and near-slum areas of at least some Canadian cities. Also let us not forget the danger that lurks in the fire traps, let us not forget the newspaper headlines that we see too often, particularly during the winter months, that tell of death by fire, by suffocation and neglect in many of our towns and cities.

National Housing Act
Alter nearly 20 years of steady improvement in average housing conditions in this country, is it not reasonable to ask one simple question? How long must the trend of improvement in average housing standards continue before we take steps, as a national parliament, to do away with some of the extreme privation that continues to plague large numbers of our fellow Canadians in their housing predicament? The answer to this question, to those who have visited Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, and Vancouver particularly-my home city-hits one in the face, and certainly there is no reason for any of us to be complacent or satisfied with what we find in these cities. We cannot go on indefinitely improving the average standard of housing conditions and not seriously try to do something worth while for the large numbers of people, who are forced to put up with accommodation that in some instances at least offends even the most rudimentary sense of human dignity.
Under the National Housing Act over the past ten years the production of half a million new houses has been subsidized or assisted in one way or another. Of these houses, 450,000-90 per cent-have been built under the insured loan provisions of the National Housing Act. That is to say 90 per cent of the entire housing output associated with the National Housing Act has been provided for the middle income or upper income classes. These are people who can afford new houses. But only 10 per cent of the N.H.A. output was provided under the sections of the act specifically designed to benefit people in the lower income brackets.
I submit it is clear from this pattern that Canadian housing policy has been heavily committed to the support and aid of the private market; and rather to the production of housing than to its distribution, which has been left almost entirely to these private market forces. I am sure that the government and all hon. members of this house fully support the good features of what has happened under our existing housing policy and favour its continuation. Perhaps one way to put it is to say that this continued improvement has become a basic fact of Canadian life. But while we may undertake to continue this policy, we must be careful not to give it our exclusive commitment, because there are many things which this type of public financing cannot do. For instance, it cannot assure us that we will be able to correct the worst housing conditions, housing conditions of the nature to which I referred a few moments ago. Admittedly correction of these conditions cannot be achieved either quickly or economically under what is

frequently called the "filtering down*' process. I think all hon. members know, what is meant by the filtering down process, and I believe we all subscribe to some degree of belief in that process. If you build houses for the middle or upper income class, the poor of course will benefit from some of the houses which are passed down to them by the upper classes. That will follow as daylight follows dark. The slum or near slum dwellers and the poor of this country-the residual legatees, if you want to put it that way, of this filtering down process-would be very much worse off, if there were no filtering down process. Nevertheless they do not get the type of help that I am sure members of this house want them to have. The filtering down process is too indirect. It is too uncertain; it is too slow; and it is too expensive in the long run.
In the view of the government, public housing offers a device by which additional housing can be made available directly at subsidized rents to those most in need, without requiring any diversion of the housing requirements of others. If the elimination of substandard housing conditions in Canada is among our housing objectives, as it should be, then we will have to depend largely upon public housing to achieve these objectives.
There has been provision for public housing in the National Housing Act for as far back as 1949. Section 36 of that act provided for the construction and operation of public housing projects by the federal and provincial governments on a 75-25 per cent cost sharing basis.
Some provinces, and more particularly Saskatchewan-I was very impressed by the developments I saw during my visit to Saskatchewan-have done more than others in this field. Projects are initiated by the municipalities with the approval of the provinces, and during the 15 years since this section has been introduced some 12,000 public housing units have been built in Canada. Of these only
9,000	have been let at subsidized rents geared to the tenants' income. The annual subsidy bill to the federal government for these houses for the people in the lower income brackets, and our elderly citizens, is $1.7 million, and in my opinion that is a shockingly low sum to pay for a country as rich as Canada.
There are well over 100,000 families in Canada, who are unable to go to the private market to obtain accommodation or to go on the market and get houses under the existing provisions of the National Housing Act. In the course of my visits during recent months, I have been taken to houses where the accommodation is shocking and would not be considered adequate under the most Spartan of

standards. In my view, and I speak as a minister of the crown, our best accomplishments in public housing are not impressive. In the view of the government it represents the greatest single area of failure in our federal housing policy.
As hon. members will see from the resolution, paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), the bill to be placed before them has as one of its principal aims a new emphasis on the needs of low income families. The bill itself will contain a new institutional framework for the provision of public housing.
As I mentioned earlier, the existing legislation does provide for federal-provincial partnerships engaged in public housing activities. Now it is proposed in this new resolution that the provinces, or perhaps I should say the municipalities which are designated by the provinces, may create and own public housing projects themselves. The federal government, through C.M.H.C., is to provide long term capital assistance in the form of loans and in the form of grants for such projects. If hon. members look at paragraph (c) of the resolution this becomes obvious. The federal government is also to pay a portion of the annual subsidies or operating losses of such projects created by the provinces or by the municipalities which they designate. That is also provided for in paragraph (c).
These projects, of course, will be reserved generally for the use of tenants unable to afford adequate accommodation on the private market. It will be largely up to the provinces and to the local government bodies designated by them to acquire and to build and manage these projects. The public housing contemplated-this is very significant-may consist of new dwellings or may consist of dwellings acquired or leased from the existing stock of units. As far as the government is concerned, non-self-contained as well as self-contained accommodation will be considered eligible under paragraph (d) of the resolution. The provision for provincial and municipal ownership to which I have just referred is considered fitting because of the wide range of responsibilities which must be assumed by the provinces, or rather by the designated municipalities. It seems obvious that the provinces will have to co-operate, and the success of the scheme to a large extent will depend on the co-operation we get from the provinces and the municipalities they designate. Even though this be so, it is not necessary for either provincial or local governments to choose this new course which is provided for in the resolution, because there is no change in what they have been able to do in the past. The existing legislation will continue.
While providing for the new techniques the legislation will not take away anything that
National Housing Act
is in the old section 36, and the arrangements for federal-provincial projects, financed on the 75-25 per cent basis, will remain. The purchase or lease of existing housing as well as the building of new houses will be possible under the new legislation. It is also significant that buildings that are not self-contained will be included in the new scheme.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the bill, which I hope we will be able to discuss in all its detail on a very early occasion, will, as the resolution indicates, offer a new technique for public housing. It will also provide for some amplification of present techniques. The goal of the legislation is frankly ambitious and it encompasses nothing less than a decent standard of housing for all Canadians.
I must point out, however, that, as I mentioned a moment ago, this objective cannot be secured by the federal government alone. It can be achieved only in those provinces which subscribe to and are prepared to share the purposes and aims of the new legislation and, of course, are prepared to share a portion of the costs.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the government has a flexible attitude toward the new legislation itself but not toward the objective. If within a reasonable time the legislation fails to produce the pace of activity that is needed to bring about our ultimate goal it will have to be reviewed. I believe, however, that as long as there is hard evidence of provincial dedication to the same goal as is outlined in the resolution, we will reach that goal together and we will reach it in our and not in somebody else's lifetime.
I turn now to another broad area of public policy toward which the proposed bill is directed. For the first time federal legislation is put forward which will encourage and assist municipalities, with appropriate provincial authorization and supervision, to conduct broad programs of urban renewal. Since the early 1940's-1944, I believe-the National Housing Act has offered aid to municipalities to acquire and clear worn out or substandard areas for urban redevelopment. The federal government has been willing to pay half the cost of buying and clearing blighted property, but there is a string attached to the existing legislation. It can only be done so long as there is housing before or after on the cleared site.
The federal government has also shared with the municipalities the proceeds from the disposal of cleared land. I remember one very shocking piece of land with which I am familiar, known as the Bluewater area in Sarnia. The development arose out of the exigencies of war, when there was a great deal of construction. Any kind of roof was

National Housing Act
good enough, and worse than a slum sprang up in a period of roughly ten years. These buildings have all been cleared out and removed, and under a bylaw of the city of Sarnia the property is being converted into a major new development area for industry. And so it should be because-


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired unless the committee wishes to allow him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This area in Sarnia has been cleaned up and it is now being offered to industry. But there are other areas in many cities where it may be that the land should not be put to industrial purposes but should be residential. The provisions of the old act have encouraged five provincial governments and several municipalities to work along these lines. Altogether some 600 acres of urban land-and that is a lot of property- are either cleared or subject to a redevelopment program that involves slum clearance by bulldozer. Some $70 million has been or is being spent for the demolition of properties in these areas.
Municipal plans for redevelopment of cleared areas have led to the construction of a few public housing projects and the setting aside of land for parks and recreational purposes, all of which is commendable, as well as for commercial purposes. These redevelopment efforts reflect the concern of all three levels of government about the gradual spread of slums and blight and the ensuing depreciation that comes from slum areas and affects properties adjacent to slum areas.
I have spent a fair amount of time during the last two and a half months visiting some of these areas and considering reports that have come in to Central Montgage and Housing Corporation. I am firmly convinced that the course embarked upon by the late minister of national revenue when he put the N.H.A. resolution on the order paper during the first session of this parliament will commend itself to all members of the house. The plans included in the proposed new legislation call for the redevolpment of areas which would lead to the construction of public housing in some areas as well as commercial development in the same areas.
As I said before, these redevelopment efforts reflecting the concern of municipal governments can now be directed toward all these objectives. I say that for this reason. If studies are made of the data to which I have referred

earlier they will show that the average cost of clearing an acre of land in a municipality is roughly $100,000. That is the average cost; but in our two major cities, Montreal and Toronto, the average cost is $300,000 per acre. Under these circumstances it becomes necessary or advisable for the federal government to move in and assume a major share of the cost and, as is proposed by this legislation, lend money to municipalities or in some cases make funds available through grants to correct the situation.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman, or would you like me to continue and finish my statement tonight?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the acting house leader about the business for tomorrow. If he can also give us a hint with regard to the business for Monday it will be very helpful to any who may be called away on urgent business. I understand that the house leader would like to pass the resolution stage preceding the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act without debate. We think that is a sensible suggestion and we agree to it. We are quite prepared to do the same thing with regard to the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act. The bills will then be before us at the next stage and we would have the debate then, rather than on the resolution stage.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, on the understanding contained in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, tomorrow the first item of business will be the resolution preceding the measure to amend the Farm Credit Act, and then the resolution preceding the measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act. This is on the understanding that they will go through without any debate. If that is not the understanding-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I may say just a word? The house leader did speak to me, at any rate, about the first of these items. I have conducted the necessary consultations to join in the agreement so far as the Farm Credit Act resolution is concerned. Possibly we can make some other arrangement with regard to the other, but that had not been put to us yet.


Alexander Bell Patterson: We find ourselves in the same position. We discussed the first resolution having to do with the Farm Credit Act, but not the Export Credits Insurance Act. However, I feel that would be satisfactory to our group.


John Watson MacNaught: On that understanding, the first item called will be the resolution preceding the Farm Credit Act amendment. If negotiations can be worked out between the house leaders between now and tomorrow morning the next item to be called will be the resolution preceding the Export Credits Insurance Act. Then, of course, we will take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. On Monday we will go on with the resolution that we were discussing this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I directed the following question to the Minister of Labour:
Would he tell the house whether the figure for April 30, 1964, in today's answer to the written question of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) represents an increase or a decrease in unemployment in comparison with April 30, 1963?
The answer to the written question to which I have just referred gave the number of registered claimants for unemployment insurance at the end of each month from May 1963 to April, 1964. I suggest that to simply set forth the figures in this way does not provide information that is really useful or meaningful to the Canadian people. I feel it is an urgent national matter and that they deserve to have this type of information at this time in a way that really indicates the true situation with regard to unemployment in our country. I suggest that a simple comparison of figures, one month with another, within the same over-all 12 month period does not do this at all.
A simple comparison of this type, for example, does not take into account the seasonal factors. It ignores the fact that for certain types of jobs unemployment tends to rise in certain months of the year and therefore unemployment in Canada has had a certain tendency to rise in the months of winter and early spring. I believe that at this time the Canadian people are watching the operations of this government. They are continually forming judgments of its activities and results.
For example, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that they are most interested in the unemployment insurance fund. They note the deficit figures
28, 1964	3719
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion reported. I think they are interested in seeing whether these figures are increasing or decreasing, whether the balance of the fund is showing a tendency to rise or to go down compared to the balance in the preceding year. They would like to see how these particular figures for the unemployment insurance fund might be linked or might not be linked with the figures for unemployment- not the way they have been given in the answer to which I referred.
I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that to form a proper judgment they must have the figures for the same period in the preceding year to see what kind of job this Liberal government has been doing in fighting unemployment. For that reason I ask for the type of information that I requested in my question, so that we can see exactly what has been happening since the Liberal government came into office, in comparison with the unfortunate period when the Conservative party formed the government of this country.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) has asked me to speak on his behalf this evening in an effort to clear up what does appear to be a meaningless set of figures that I gave in the answer which is recorded on page 3644 of yesterday's Hansard.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are the one who gave them.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would be very pleased to table the figures for the two years, that is, for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64, if hon. members would care to have me do that, and thus save time for perhaps more important matters. If that is agreed I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that this table has been prepared with the figures supplied-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary wish to have these figures printed as part of his speech?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where do the figures come from?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: These figures, I was about to say, were supplied to me by the unemployment insurance commission, and there is no question about them.


Erik Nielsen: Read them out.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In any event, if hon. members do not wish to have the figures on the record I will not have time to read them all, but I would simply state that as of May 1962 there were 263,862 persons unemployed and at the end of May 1963 there were 270,892 persons unemployed, so you can see there was a slightly larger number unemployed at that time.
3720	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Now I will give the other end of the scale. At the end of April 1963 there were 565,928 persons unemployed and at the end of April, 1964 there were 497,745 unemployed. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that there were 68,173 fewer persons unemployed as of the end of April this year than April 1963.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary as his time has expired.



SHIPPING


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the matter I wish to raise tonight arises out of the question I asked the Prime Minister concerning the plight of operators of small tourist establishments, marinas and marine installations on lake Huron, and especially on Georgian bay.
Georgian bay is particularly hit by the low water problem, for several reasons. First is the type of business that is operated on the bay and the limited season under which the operators have to work. There is also the fact that the prevailing winds in this area tend to aggravate the low water situation. These operators are really in a disaster area just as much as farmers with a crop failure or with a loss of markets, or workmen who are unemployed. Not only are these people in difficult circumstances themselves but they gain a large amount of tourist dollars for this country. They pay their regular income tax and in ordinary circumstances they ask for and receive no favours from the government. They are small businessmen who operate a business for a few short months of the year. They try to make a reasonable living for themselves and also they bring in tourist dollars which as we all know form a large part of the credit on exchange with other countries. These people are now in difficulty. They must stay in business both for their own livelihood and for the benefit of our tourist industry and national economy. If they go out of business and lose their customers it might be a long time before they recover.
The government has announced that aid will be provided. I am asking that the aid to be given be extended to small operators in present difficulties. Briefly, I am asking the government to include in the estimates which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has undertaken to introduce to the house soon a grant to these operators as a disaster grant on the following bases: first, that it be granted only for the purpose of dredging, dock extension or similar work to permit small commercial enterprises whose water access has been cutoff or reduced by low water to improve their ability to operate; second, that this grant be

limited to a prescribed figure in the area of $5,000 or $10,000, as a maximum. I have made a survey of a number of tourist operators in my area on Georgian bay and I believe $3,500 would be the average amount required to give these people the opportunity to recover from this disaster which has befallen them. Third, this grant could cover only out-of-pocket expenses. Fourth, it is suggested that the claims be submitted to the district marine agent or a prescribed official of the Department of Public Works who would inspect the location and verify the need for the work and the estimated cost.
This, in brief, is what I have asked. I asked the Prime Minister yesterday if any such arrangement was included in his proposal and he answered: I cannot answer that question now. I am given some measure of hope that perhaps the Prime Minister may have this in mind and I am raising the question particularly so that it will be brought in with the estimates which will be introduced. Since these estimates are being planned to meet the emergency I am hopeful that the government is meeting the request for a special spending estimate to take care of this particular situation. I know that public works are being provided for commercial navigation, but as to help for these people who are commercial operators in a small way, we are not sure. I want to draw this to the attention of the government to make sure that they are not overlooked.


Hon. J. P. Deschalelels (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think we all listened with interest to the observations made by the hon. member this evening.
The matter he raises is at considerable variance with the question he recently put to the Prime Minister.
The hon. member raises the case of the small tourist accommodation operators who, because of the low levels in the great lakes and Georgian bay will lose this year profits resulting from their normal operations in those areas.
I may tell the hon. member that within a few days-I do not know whether I will be in a position to do it on Monday, but surely at the beginning of next week-I shall make a statement concerning practically every aspect of what the Department of Public Works can do to offer a short term solution to those problems resulting from the low levels.
The dredging projects that the department is carrying out will undoubtedly be profitable to small operators of businesses located along navigable waters.
I wish to assure the hon. member that we will have a quite substantial sum of money in

the supplementary estimates to be brought forward shortly, precisely with a view to bringing a short term solution to those cases.
The most important thing for us-I think the hon. member will understand what I mean -is to begin by providing for ocean shipping, because we have along those rivers harbours which are the mainstay of those smaller cities. If we did not carry out dredging operations this year, those localities would become ghost towns.
That is why this matter is extremely important, something we are well aware of. We shall have, within a few days, substantial supplementary estimates.
What we shall do strictly for ocean shipping will also include those establishments and those tourist centres located along those rivers.
I hope that answers the question raised by my hon. friend.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the case of Mr. Eric Hooper, not because I am concerned only with Mr. Hooper and what was obviously a tremendous injustice committed against him, but because I am concerned with the rights which all Canadians have believed were guaranteed to them and which this case demonstrates can be, and are being ignored very frequently by government departments, and particularly by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It seems to me that the rights which we have always thought were guaranteed to us are as follows: First, the right of a person accused of a crime to be charged within a very short period of time after he has been detained; second, the right of a person to have counsel; third, the right of a person charged not to be intimidated by the government officials questioning him; and fourth, the right of a person accused to be arraigned before a judge or a magistrate within 24 hours.
Mr. Hooper was arrested on February 16, apparently because it was charged that he had assaulted his estranged wife. That charge was dropped in a fairly short period of time; but instead of being released from the Don jail he was held for 96 more days until he was brought before a magistrate. Then when he was brought before the magistrate he was charged with a very serious offence, and I quote from the charge:
-you unlawfully refused to answer a question put to you. under section 50 of the Canada Immigration Act.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
But, Mr. Speaker, the questions he refused to answer were asked of him on March 23. Why was this man held in the Don jail from February 16 to March 23 when the hearing was held? I think one of these days-


Erik Nielsen: Sixty days of decision.


David Orlikow: -the minister is going to have to face up to the problem of these people in difficulties with the immigration department being held in places like Don jail, Bordeaux jail and others which I hope the minister will tell us about at an early time.
After the hearing was held it took them another nine weeks before his case was brought to court. I should like the minister to tell the house and the people of Canada how much longer it would have taken had not this man finally got word to a lawyer that he was being held for this length of time. If the Toronto newspapers had not carried this case as a front page story, would this man have been held another 96 days or 196 days? This is a very important question. I wonder whether the immigration officials or the minister think for one moment that Mr. Hooper would have stayed in jail for nine days, let alone 96 days, had he had the money to get a lawyer. I wonder whether Mr. Hooper would have stayed in jail for this period of time had his colour been white instead of black. It seems to me that here is another case of one law for the rich and another for the poor.
At the immigration department board of inquiry held in the Don jail, Mr. Hooper claims he refused to answer questions until he got a lawyer. The Minister of Justice denied that today but I think this claim is worth looking into. Mr. Hooper claims that one of the immigration officials at this hearing told him-and I am quoting from Mr. Hooper's words as reported in a Toronto newspaper-"You'll rot here till you're ready to talk". I suggest that Mr. Hooper should have been kept in Canada long enough to find out whether the words he alleged were used were in fact true. Because if they were, the official who used those words should have been fired immediately. Instead, the department then got busy and got him out of the country so that we could not get the real facts. There is no other reason for moving quickly at the time they did.
Mr. Hooper rotted in the Don jail for 57 days until a charge was laid on May 19. Then he appeared in court a week later only to be sent back to jail because the case was remanded. Why was the case remanded? Because after all this period of time the department did not hire a lawyer to represent them until the day the case came to

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion court; and of course the lawyer needed time to study the case. Surely the department could have hired a lawyer a little earlier, and surely they could have hired a lawyer who was not so busy that he did not have time to look into the case properly. But obviously the department were not worried about Mr. Hooper. I think that some of the departmental officials should be sent to jail for a week to see how they feel about it; and after that they might have a heart, which they do not seem to have now.
The case was to be heard on a Monday. On the Monday the magistrate freed the prisoner on his own recognizance. The department then acted quickly. Mr. Hooper was seized, taken back to jail and deported. After all those weeks why not let Mr. Hooper stay in Canada until the facts could come out? What was the department afraid of, and for whom were they covering up? How many other people are there locked up? The lawyer who acted for Mr. Hooper is quoted in both of this evening's Ottawa newspapers as saying that he understands there are ten other people held on the instructions of the immigration department in the Don jail who have been there for more than a month.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to clarify some facts stated by the hon. member, regarding the number of people detained in our Canadian jails under the Immigration Act.
According to information obtained today from the department, only 16 people at the present time are being detained in Canada for deportation purposes, under the Immigration Act. Out of those 16 people-
One hon. Member: For how long?


René Tremblay: -six have been detained for more than 30 days.


An hon. Member:: Why?


René Tremblay: There are two main reasons why those six people are being detained: they may have taken legal proceedings to have the order of deportation issued against them quashed and their right to stay in Canada recognized or arrangements may be under way
with the various countries concerned to secure their authorization for the deportation of some of those people to the countries where they are to go.
That is a first correction. Now, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has given all the facts relating to the case and it stands out that the proceedings which were first taken before the Ontario courts took some time. The officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration came into the picture only when it was decided to withdraw the charge laid against Mr. Hooper.
The longest period runs between March 23 and May 5. What happened during that time? An investigation was made. Mr. Hooper was called and refused to answer. The investigation was postponed for a few days; he was called again and again he refused to answer. Then it was pointed out that Mr. Hooper was married to a Canadian woman and that he had a child here. The case thus became very important and was referred to the department for consideration. The department needs three weeks to study thoroughly the case of a person who has someone in Canada, a wife and a child were involved in this case. The investigation continued and in view of what came to light, the department decided that proceedings were justified. On May 5, at the department's request, proceedings were instituted against Mr. Hooper.
It is from that time that two appearances are made before the courts. Adjournments are requested, as is done in many cases.
I would state, therefore, that Mr. Hooper was held prisoner under Canadian laws and enjoyed all the privileges granted to a Canadian resident, even though he is not a Canadian citizen, but an American citizen. Therefore, in the case of Mr. Hooper, there has not been any undue delay, but in the future proceedings initiated by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will always be as expeditious as possible, and we shall always show the greatest respect for those who reside in Canada, even illegally, and even for those who must be deported for having violated our laws.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Ninety six days in jail without a lawyer. Liberal freedom.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, May 29, 1964