1964-11-02

Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, as a result of a speech delivered in Toronto by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), in which he said that the province of Quebec was the greatest obstacle to a comprehensive vision and a common effort in federal politics. He said:
The Quebec members of parliament tend to stand aloof from their colleagues speaking the other language and to consider their provincial capital as the real seat of power in Canada.
Such statements, Mr. Speaker, are unfair and unfortunate and cannot but deeply annoy the Quebec members in this house.
The main political concern of every Canadian citizen should be the greatness and prestige of Canada.
Quebec members are Canadians and are prompted by that national political ideal. Of course, they refuse to be assimilated because they are prompted by a true national ideal, which is based on their will to spread the influence of the French fact throughout Canada.
We categorically reject the statements made by the hon. member for Port Arthur and we declare that, contrary to the ideology preached by the Liberal federation of Quebec and its officers, the main political expression of French Canada is the Quebec members sitting in the House of Commons who wish to contribute to the greatness of their country, of which they are proud.



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO HUNGARY

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian wheat board announced in Winnipeg that it has negotiated a contract for the sale
of approximately 100,000 long tons of wheat to Hungary. This sale, totalling about 3.7 million bushels, is for shipment during the period December through March, 1965, from Canadian east coast ports. This is the first sale made to Hungary under the provisions of the long term agreement signed on June 11, 1964, whereby Hungary had agreed to purchase 250,000 long tons of wheat during the three years of the agreement.
Payment for the wheat is to be made on the basis of ten per cent at time of shipment with the remaining balance to be paid in equal instalments, plus interest, at two, two and a half and three years respectively. These credit arrangements were authorized by the government of Canada under the provisions of the Export Credits Insurance Act. The buyer has the right to divert the wheat to any other eastern European socialist country.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table French and English copies of a release which was handed out last Friday after the two-day conference on Indian affairs. This release outlines the general opinion of those who took part in this conference, as representatives of the parties concerned.



DESIGNATION OF LACROSSE AS CANADA'S NATIONAL GAME

Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-134, respecting the national game of Canada (lacrosse).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, if I read the preamble to the bill and the explanatory notes, both of which are very brief, I think this will explain the purpose of the bill. The preamble reads:

Questions
Whereas lacrosse has been played in Canada from time immemorial; whereas it has long been assumed that lacrosse is the national game of Canada; and whereas there is an attempt to have a lesser game adopted as the national game of Canada-
The explanatory notes read:
Lacrosse has been played in Canada for an unknown period of time, having been played by the original native Indian people. It is uniquely Canadian and was not imported to this country [DOT]as all other games have been.
The purpose of this bill is to rectify what was probably an oversight on the part of the Fathers of Confederation who were so preoccupied with drafting sections 91 and 92 of the B.N.A. Act that the question of declaring a national game escaped their attention.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for New Westminster has seconded this bill not simply because he is my seatmate, but he represents the home city of the Salmonbellies, which team has won the Canadian senior lacrosse championship more times than any other team.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	In the light of the public statement recently made by Mr. A. D. Margison and Associates Ltd. in reference to the building of the Prince Edward Island causeway, when does the government of Canada intend to issue a progress report on the project?
2.	Have any other private companies expressed an interest in undertaking the construction of the causeway and, if so, what has been the government's reply?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelefs (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The government of Canada is considering a progress report on the Northumberland strait crossing project received from Northumberland Consultants Limited.
2. No other proposal has been received though an approach has been made from one company other than A. D. Margison and Associates Ltd.


P.E.I. CAUSEWAY-CONSTRUCTION WITH OR WITHOUT RAILS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Are any officials or agencies of the government of Canada making a study of the effects on freight movements to and from Prince Edward Island which might result from the construction of a causeway on which no railway tracks would be laid

and, if so, when is such a study expected to be concluded?
2.	What is now the estimated cost of constructing such a causeway between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick (a) without rails (b) with rails?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: 1. Yes, and expected to be concluded about January, 1965.
2. There is as yet no firm estimate.


FREIGHT CARS USING DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE RAILWAY
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	Do Canadian National Railways freight cars to, or through, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland, Ohio, exclusively use the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company as far as, or from Detroit, Michigan, via the Grand Trunk Western Railroad and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Do the freight cars of American companies destined for Toronto, Montreal, or Quebec city, from, or through, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati or Cleveland, Ohio, exclusively use the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company as far as, or from Detroit, Michigan, via the Grand Trunk Western Railroad and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secreiary to Minister of Transport):: The
management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Canadian National cars moving to or through the points mentioned do not move exclusively via the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad. There are competitive routes to all of these locations and the routing of freight traffic is governed by the shipper and/ or consignee. However, where traffic originating on Canadian National lines is not specifically routed and where there is no difference in rates, the railway applies routing via the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line.
2.	The answer is the same as in No. 1 above, except where routing is not specified by the shipper or consignee, it may be applied by the railway on which the traffic originates.


CANADIAN STUDENTS VISITING CUBA
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What are the names, dates and places of birth of the 46 Canadian students, male and female, who recently left on a study trip to Cuba?
2.	When did they leave?
3.	When are they expected back?
4.	Who is paying for the travelling and stay of these students abroad?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Canada has no regulations restricting the travel of Canadians to

Cuba. Canadian citizens are not required to inform the Department of External Affairs of their plans to visit that country or to supply to the department any personal particulars in connection with such plans.
2.	The Cuban press reported the arrival in Cuba of the Canadian students on July 6, 1964.
3.	Newspapers in both Cuba and Canada reported that they returned to Canada around the end of August, 1964.
4.	Information published in Canada by the organizers of the tour indicated that the Cuban government would provide transportation and accommodation for the students.


TRANSPORTATION FOR PROVINCIAL PREMIERS TO QUEEN'S DEPARTURE
Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-: Revelstoke):
1.	Was official transportation made available to the provincial premiers on Tuesday, October 13, 1964, to take them to R.C.A.F. station. Uplands, to attend the departure of Her Majesty the Queen and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Were one or more requests for official transportation made on behalf of the premiers and was this courtesy refused and, if so, for what reasons?
3.	When the provincial premiers arrive in Ottawa to attend dominion-provincial conferences are they met by an official of the Department of Secretary of State to assure that all arrangements have been satisfactorily made for their convenience; on such occasions is official transportation made available to them at their place of arrival or is any official transportation provided for them during the course of the conferences; if not, for what reasons?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of this question is no. It is not customary to provide official transportation for guests invited to departure ceremonies at R.C.A.F. station Uplands. In answer to part 2 of the question, no such requests were made. In answer to part 3 of the question, it has not been the practice to meet provincial premiers or to provide them with transportation upon their arrival in Ottawa to attend federal-provincial conferences. However, transportation is normally provided in connection with official functions during the conferences.


DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE RAILWAY
Mr. Marcoux: Is the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company owned in part by the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company, a subsidiary of Canadian National Railways, and, if so, what person or organization jointly and severally guaranteed the capital, the interest and the payments to the depreciation fund in connection with the first mort-
Questions
gage bonds of the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company, series A, 31 per cent, 30 year, to the amount of $2,708,000, due December 1, 1982?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Yes, and the Grand Trunk Western and the New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company are jointly and severally liable as guarantors of the principal, interest and sinking fund payments with respect to $2,708,000 first mortgage 3J per cent 30 year series "A" bonds due December 1, 1982.


COMMITTEE ON OCCURRENCE OF CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	What are the specific terms of reference for the committee on occurrence of congenital abnormalities, of the dominion council of health?
2.	What funds will be made available to this committee annually?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The terms of reference for the committee on occurrence of congenital abnormalities, as set out in the minutes of the meeting of the dominion council of health in April 1963, are as follows:-
"The purpose of the committee shall be to advise the Department of National Health and Welfare, through the dominion council of health, on measures which when implemented will improve the quantity, quality and availability of information on the occurrence of congenital anomalies in Canada.
This information shall be pertinent to etiology, prevention, diagnosis and ultimately the treatment and rehabilitation of individuals so affected.
This information shall be of such a nature as to be of value for epidemiological studies, assessment of health service needs, as well as more fundamental research in the field of etiology.
The committee shall examine currently available information from various sources and shall determine its adequacy for the above purposes.
The committee may establish subcommittees to study particular aspects of the problem and may add to its membership, if necessary, for this purpose."
2. The transportation and living expenses of members in attending meetings of the committee are paid by the Department of National Health and Welfare.

Questions


ST. CATHARINES CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the government received representations from the St. Catharines city council deploring the increase in P.S.I. insurance rates, and recommending the early implementation of a national medical health plan and, if so, what has been their reply?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The Prime Minister has been notified by the deputy city clerk of the city of St. Catharines of a resolution passed by the city council on this matter, and the city authorities have been advised that their representations have been noted.


MOTEL DEVELOPMENT, BANFF TOWNSITE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What was the content of the telegram received by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on July 10, 1964, from the Banff advisory council?
2.	Has the Banff advisory council agreed that the motel to be located on the Bow river site might be located on another more suitable site in Banff to avoid commercialization of an area described in the Oberlander report as one of the most beautiful in the park?
3.	What were the reasons advanced by the Banff townsite interim development committee in rejecting the proposal for a motel development on this site particularly lots 22A and 23A?
4.	Is it possible to reconcile a commercial motel development with the boardwalk viewing bays and displays of water plants contemplated by the Oberlander report and, if so, in what manner?
5.	Does the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources intend to establish a buffer zone to avoid commercial encroachment destructive to the presentation of the natural beauty of the park?
6.	Are any other lots adjacent to the Bow View lodge site under lease to a private operator and, if so, is it the intention of the minister to permit further commercial development on these lots?
7.	Is the land zoning policy in national parks contemplated by the minister in his statement of September 18, 1964, the same as that announced by the former government in January, 1963 and, if not, what changes have been made?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. The
telegram of July 10, 1964 from the president of the Banff advisory council asked me to review the proposed construction of the Bow View motor lodge after considering their reasons for opposing the development.
2. At a meeting I recently attended, the Banff advisory council suggested that the developers be offered another site in exchange. However, the Bow river site was designated in the Oberlander report for tourist accommodation.
[Miss LaMarsh.l
3.	The Banff townsite interim development committee initially opposed the proposal for a motel development on the basis of land use.
4.	Yes, by the closing of Bow avenue to vehicular traffic as recommended by the Oberlander report.
5.	Such buffer zone has already been provided by virtue of a 100 foot reservation along the shore of the river for use by the public as contained in the national parks general regulations.
6.	Yes. Decisions concerning future commercial development will be made if and when applications are received.
7.	There are no available records which would indicate that an official statement concerning the land zoning policy in national parks was made by the former government in January, 1963. If such announcement was made at that time it was not made in the House of Commons.


USE OF RECREATION HALL, P.E.I. NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	During the season 1964, what use was made of the recreation hall at the Cavendish section of the Prince Edward Island national park?
2.	What employees carried out their duties in this building?
3.	Was a register of visitors to the building maintained and, if so, what was the total number of visitors for the season 1964?
4.	Who held the post of director of recreation during the 1964 season?
5.	What recreational programs were carried on under the direction of the park personnel at the beach in Cavendish?
6.	In 1964, were representations received from groups or individuals requesting the use of the recreational hall for directed group programs?
7.	What was the nature of the replies given to such representations?


Arthur Laing: 1. The recreational building was used as a park information bureau.
2.	An information bureau attendant was the only employee of the park who utilized the recreation hall in 1964.
3.	Yes, during the period of July and August the information bureau attendant served 1,494 visitor groups.
4.	No such position was on the establishment of this park during the 1964 season.
5.	The park naturalist undertook evening programs at the Cavendish campground three evenings each week and the lifeguards at Cavendish main beach and campground beach provided swimming instructions for those visitors who were interested.

6.	Yes, requests were made on three occasions for the use of this building.
7.	In one instance, a theatre group performing at the new centennial theatre in Charlottetown and accommodated in the area, utilized the building for rehearsal purposes in order to avoid transportation difficulties to Charlottetown. In the other two instances, the Cavendish Beach development association used the building to serve refreshments to the R.C.A.F. Summerside band and the R.C.A. band, following band concerts in the park. These requests were all made by telephone and they were granted in view of the fact that they were made by responsible groups for a specific use.


UNIFORM FOOD GRADING SYSTEM
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to establishing a uniform food grading system throughout the country, such as Canada No. 1, No. 2, No. 3?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes. This matter is being
studied to determine if it would be feasible and practicable to establish a uniform grading system. Uniform food grading is no doubt desirable, but the grades of many food products, which have been established for many years, are understood and recognized in international trading, thus they do not lend themselves readily to change.


STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	As of September 30, 1964, how many students in each province and territory have been granted Canada student loans?
2.	In each province and territory, what was the total of loans granted as of September 30, 1964?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. This information is not yet available.
2. This information is not yet available.


* SITE FOR QUEEN ELIZABETH OBSERVATORY
Mr. Basford: Has a site been selected for construction of the Queen Elizabeth II observatory and, if so, what is the site?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard as to whether a site has been selected for construction of the Queen Elizabeth II observatory and, if so, what is the site, I should like to state that public announcement of the site was made on
Inquiries of the Ministry October 28, 1964. It will be located on Mount Kobau in the southern Okanagan valley in the province of British Columbia.


WIDENING OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, WINNIPEG
Mr. Enns: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport been approached by Manitoba's minister of public works in connection with widening the trans-Canada highway to four lanes west from Winnipeg to the junction of No. 4 highway?
2.	Is the unused Cabot line of the C.N.R. required for this project and will the Minister of Transport urge the board of transport commissioners to consider Manitoba's request to have the C.N.R.'s application to abandon this line, heard before the end of the year so that the said track can be lifted during the winter to allow an early start on the expressway next spring?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes, informally.
2. It has been indicated to the minister of public works of Manitoba that, if he makes a proposal in the name of the Manitoba government that the hearing on the abandonment of the Cabot line be proceeded with, the Minister of Transport would pass that request on to the board of transport commissioners with the suggestion that this particular application for abandonment be removed from the freeze.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Francis: For each department, for each of the past three years (a) how many closed competitions were held (b) how many of these competitions were subject to appeal (c) in how many competitions was an appeal sustained (d) in how many appeals was the final result the promotion of a different candidate than originally recommended?
Return tabled.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in reference to the press announcement about Indian affairs. Will the minister indicate what procedure the government has in mind, and his department in particular, to assure that each Indian band, reserve and tribe in this country will have a right to vote on whether they want a change in their relationship with the federal

Inquiries of the Ministry government or its control over them, and when will the vote take place? In general, what is going to be done or what is envisaged to assure that the Indians will not be pushed around as chattels?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me this question which will allow me, after the federal-provincial conference which was held here Thursday and Friday last and which was quite successful, to give clarifying explanations concerning the consulting procedure which was agreed upon at that conference.
The first point upon which the participants to that conference agreed upon was the necessity of consulting the Indians concerning any program which might affect them in the future.
This consulting procedure will operate at two levels.
First, in every province of Canada there shall be held a conference to which all Indians will be invited so they can express their wishes and their suggestions on the very principle of extending provincial services to the Indians in every province. After this consultation and provided the Indians agree that such provincial services would be desirable, there shall be a second method consultation: the bands will be consulted. Every band in Canada or in every province will be consulted-that is, the councils of those bands will be consulted in order to ascertain if they wish to take advantage of a program to be established in a province, and every band which does not wish to take advantage of provincial services will be free to reject such services and, under those circumstances, the federal services will remain in force.
This double consultation will make the federal and provincial governments aware of the feelings and wishes of the Indian population concerning the provision of services by the provinces.
Third, it was decided at the conference to set up, in each province, a standing Indian affairs committee which will be consulted on any administrative question concerning the Indians. As can be seen, at the very first official meeting the federal government and the provinces have been able to agree on machinery which will ensure adequate consultations with the Indians in the future.
For the first time the Indians will feel that they will be the first to benefit from the steps
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
taken by the government and that far from seeking to impose its decisions upon them, the latter wishes to approve steps which they themselves would consider advantageous.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has dealt at great length with the question of consultation. He stated that the band chief and the council of each band or reserve would be consulted. I want to ask him particularly whether there will be a vote held for each band as well as for each reserve, so the desires of the individual Indians will be ascertained?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, a vote will be taken by each band to determine whether its members wish to participate in any proposed program.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the view of the Canadian government with respect to the proposal put forward at the weekend conference that Indian reserves be incorporated into various school districts in order that a land tax may be imposed upon them for school purposes?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we have had a lengthy discussion on the problem of incorporation of Indian reserves in any province where there are schools. No decision was arrived at on the matter. These discussions will be re-opened with each province and, of course, the Indians will be consulted in this regard; however, no decision has been reached concerning new taxes on Indian reserves, although many views were expressed on that subj ect.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether the government intends to seek parliamentary approval for any such changes as he contemplates, or does he consider that the governor in council now has the authority to deal with the matter?


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we have to amend the existing legislation to conclude agreements with the provinces in connection with certain provincial services, because this is a situation which

has been prevailing for a number of years in several provinces and no new principle is involved in this matter.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the house how the permanent Indian advisory committees he mentioned are to be set up? Who is going to take the initiative to establish them?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we shall take the initiative, in co-operation with the provinces, of establishing these provincial advisory councils which might prove very valuable for the federal government and any provincial government planning to extend these services to the Indians.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In addition to these provincial consultative committees is the minister giving any thought to the setting up of a federal consultative committee with some idea of having a co-ordinated program? Second, will the minister specify what are the particular provincial services which he is going to suggest to these meetings might be made available to them?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we shall discuss with each province in particular what services it would be advisable to extend to the Indians. These can vary and include social welfare, education, health services as well as community development.
There is no precise program for the country as a whole and it is only following negotiations with the provinces that we shall be in a position to establish the categories of services some provinces are ready to offer immediately to the Indians; the other services may be extended at a later date.
In reply to the question asked by the hon. member with regard to Indian committees, I must say that these provincial committees will be under a general Indian committee and there will be joint advisory committees within the provinces to complete the matter.


Frank Howard: My question is really a reiteration of the first supplementary I asked, which I think the minister did not fully understand or, if he did, did not answer. I asked what was the position of the Canadian government with respect to the proposal that Indian reserva-
Inquiries of the Ministry tions or reserves be incorporated into the various school districts in order that they may be taxed for school purposes. What is the position of the government with respect to that proposal, which emanated at least from the province of Quebec?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows as well as everybody else that Indian property on reserves is, under the act itself and under the powers granted by the
B.N.A. Act, exempt of any possibility of taxation at the provincial level as well as at the municipal level. Therefore, I do not want to change this undeniable right of the Indians to enjoy tax exemptions on all property they own on their reserves.
On the other hand, we know that certain Indian property outside the reserve, is subject to certain provincial taxes, but the right to tax exemption on property within the reserve is something sacred, protected by the constitution itself.


Frank Howard: No, it isn't.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, for clarification purposes. Did I understand him to say that this vote that will be held on individual Indian reservations will be a vote of all the rank and file, and not just a vote of the band?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the difference? [Translation]


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the proper place to give the-detailed technique of each Indian council for the consultation method.
However, the principle is established that it will be a consultation of each band, and the council and the members will decide the methods of those consultations. The essential thing is that the council and the band be consulted with relation to the extension of services.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I still have not the clarification for which I asked, Mr. Speaker. When I mentioned bands, I assume there is a council of each band. Is the vote going to be held just among the band council, or is it the rank and file who are going to have a chance to vote?

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I know that each band possesses a structure whereby they determine their own problems. I do not think this is the place or the time for the minister to determine the way this consultation will take place. The essential thing is that the band is consulted. It is up to the Indians to decide whether this consultation should take place by means of the council or whether the council should seek the advice of the members themselves, and to do so in a democratic way.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Will the minister require a 95 to 98 per cent majority before accepting the decisions?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. This might be a question for the order paper, but in view of the fact that winter works projects start today, and that several municipalities have yet to receive the required authorization to proceed with their plans, I would like to ask the minister to give us an answer tomorrow.
If there is delay, will the minister take the necessary steps to allow these municipal winter works to be undertaken this week, where they have been accepted by the provinces? Moreover, will the department's approval be retroactive and, is the number of projects that had been approved on November 1, 1964 the same as on November 1 of last year?


PRESS RELEASES ON WINTER WORKS IN ENGLISH ONLY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Following complaints received by several weeklies of the province of Quebec to the effect that the press releases from the Department of Labour on winter works and other matters are received only in English, and

after finding that those releases come to my office both in English and in French-for which I thank the minister-will the minister investigate in his department to determine why the newspapers of the province of Quebec receive those press releases only in English?
Moreover, will he correct that mistake? [Text]


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make inquiries.


REQUEST THAT PENDING LEGISLATION BE CONSIDERED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Since further and numerous recommendations made over the week end indicate that the trucking industry is far from assured about Bill No. C-126, I wonder whether the minister has given further consideration to referring the legislation so the industry can make their representations before an all party committee of the house, rather than considering the bill in committee of the whole house? Has the minister given further consideration to this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are giving no further consideration to this point, which I dealt with last week.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he would give consideration to the point raised by the hon. member for Regina City. The truckers in general want to be given an opportunity of placing their views-and they seem to be thoughtful views-before the members of the house. Would the minister in replying also say whether the wheat pools in western Canada have made representations as to the changes which they believe should be made in the legislation as presently formulated, to the end that their industry will not suffer in consequence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the industries which have been mentioned have already made representations and are continuing to make representations, and I am sure that each of us individually would be glad to hear their views with respect to this important bill. I have already given consideration to the question of sending the bill to a committee, but taking into account all the circumstances I did not feel that it

was necessary. However, if this is a matter which requires further consideration I will be glad to give it such further consideration.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: !^r.
Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether government authorities have been informed of the action taken by 15 students from McGill University, in Montreal, who will go tomorrow to the state of Vermont in order to work for the democrat candidate, Mr. L. B. Johnson?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There have been some recent statements in the press as to the possibility of India using the reactor, which was contributed by Canada through the Colombo plan, for the production of a nuclear bomb, perhaps in response to the explosion of a nuclear bomb by the Chinese communists. Can the minister tell the house whether there is anything in these reports?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. My attention has been drawn to these press reports. As regards the policy of the Indian government in this matter, I think the record is clear. Prior to the Chinese explosion, and subsequently in the face of this event, the prime minister of India stated that India is maintaining its policy of not manufacturing atomic weapons. I regard this declaration as a positive contribution to world peace.
In so far as the Canada-India reactor is concerned, under an agreement concluded with India in April, 1956 and tabled in this house on May 9, 1956, the government of 20220-611
Inquiries of the Ministry India gave an unconditional undertaking to use it for peaceful purposes only. The relevant article of the agreement reads as follows:
The government of India will ensure that the reactor and any products resulting from its use will be employed for peaceful purposes only.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to report on this morning's meeting with the various party leaders, and could he tell us of the proposals and the progress that have been made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we had an interesting and I think useful exchange of views on the procedure that might be followed during the remainder of the autumn, as a result of which, Mr. Speaker, we agreed to meet again later in the week.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether there was a certain agreement made this morning, at the meeting of the leaders of the parties, that they could not disclose to their seatmates the results of the meeting?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that local coopers or barrel makers in Nova Scotia have been threatened with the necessity of repaying unemployment insurance benefits received during periods of unemployment since 1959, will the minister take the necessary steps to classify the cooperage trade as insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
9656	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



CANADA PLAN-REQUEST FOR EARLY CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government house leader. Pending the making of an arrangement among the party leaders regarding the question of the flag, may I ask the government house leader whether the commitment that the Canada pension plan is next in priority to interim supply still stands. Can he also say whether a decision has been made to give one day this week to the resolution preceding the Canada pension plan, so that we can get the bill?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the commitment was as to the resolution stage of the pension plan, and it still stands exactly as made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the terms in which that commitment was made, can the minister say whether we will have that one day this week?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that answer. The answer I gave when the question was asked originally made it clear, I think, that interim supply would have to take priority. The hon. member's remarks during the last part of the sitting that day contained an implication that the interim supply debate would terminate on a certain date in any event, and invited the government to take one day out of the interim supply discussion for the resolution stage of the pension plan. I said that the government would give that consideration; but I also made it clear that I did not necessarily accept the implication contained in the argument put forward. That is still the position; there has been no further decision taken on the matter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the house whether it is correct that the C.N.R. has completed the laying of track on the
[Mr. MacEachen.l

Great Slave lake railway from Peace River to Pine Point and Hay River, and that the date of completion is approximately 12 months ahead of schedule?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice, through my office, of this question. As this is the first time a railway has ever gone into the territory I do not think we should regard it as a local matter; therefore I am very happy to "answer the question by saying that the management of the C.N.R. advise that at the present time it is anticipated that track laying will be completed about 12 months ahead of schedule. This has been possible, I am informed, because working conditions turned out to be exceptionally favourable. I am also very happy to be able to add that the work, by being expedited, will enable the mining company to bring in heavy equipment to open the mine.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. If this is the case, would the government give consideration to making use of the time and money, I hope, so saved-mainly by adopting the proper route for building the railroad- in building further extensions of the railway for northern development?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is in a bit of a hurry.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer two questions that were put to me on Friday, which I took as notice. One was asked by the hon. member for Longueuil, as follows:
Inasmuch as the breakwater now being built near Champlain bridge will not be completed before the next spring break-up, is the Minister of Transport considering the possibility of using icebreakers to keep the St. Lawrence river ice free this coming winter, so the islands where the world fair is to be located may be protected!
The best answer I am able to give to this technical question-the hon. member will appreciate that I am not an engineer-is that to avoid endangering the world fair works, especially because of the narrowing of the river downstream by the temporary cofferdams protecting the construction of the Bou-cherville tunnel and bridge, and to protect

these cofferdams themselves, an extra icebreaker was assigned last year to flood prevention duties as required. No change in the amount or nature of icebreaker operations is required or contemplated for the coming winter.
I think that might also be regarded as a short answer to the question asked by my hon. friend from Halifax, but there were certain implications in my hon. friend's question which I think would make a long answer out of order, sir. Therefore I would ask my hon. friend from Halifax whether he would agree that we discuss this matter further when my estimates come up again.


Mr. Regan:: It will be a pleasure.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, in
response to a question by the hon. member for Skeena on Friday, October 30 the Prime Minister indicated that inquiries would be made concerning the alleged presence in Canada last week of George Lincoln Rockwell. These inquiries have been completed. It would be well to first explain that the television program involving this individual did not originate in Canada but rather was filmed in the United States some little time ago.
As to the possibility that Rockwell was in Vancouver for other purposes within the last week or so, a check has been made of all ports of entry in the vicinity and there is no indication of Rockwell having been allowed entry. I can assure the house that all immigration officers are fully aware of this man's personal particulars. Furthermore, a check was made at the Georgia hotel in Vancouver where Rockwell was alleged to have been staying, and there is no record of his having been registered there. Also, employees of the hotel were unable to identify Rockwell as a person whom they had seen in the hotel.
As a result of all these inquiries I am satisfied that it is highly unlikely that this man entered Canada as alleged.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether it is the fact that Mr. Rockwell is barred from entry into Canada?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
20220-611J
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE



SUGGESTED HONOUR FOR LATE SUPERINTENDENT LARSEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister relating to the news last week that Superintendent Larsen of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had passed away in Vancouver. I should like to know whether the government would give consideration to honouring Superintendent Larsen by perhaps naming one of the coastguard ships or perhaps an Arctic location after him. I do not know whether that has been done in the past, but this man made a very great contribution to the geography of this country, and I think this question should be given consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to give consideration to this interesting suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to answer the question I asked him last Friday, which was:
Do the government plan to contribute financially to the recently announced expansion of medical, dental and nursing training facilities in Ontario, and in particular will they consider contributing the 50 per cent recommended by the Hall commission report?


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the Prime Minister wishes to answer, this is certainly a question for the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Regarding the investigation being conducted by the GATT committee-
Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance should also be asked whether he paid the electricity bill.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, following the investigation conducted by the GATT committee about the necessity

Interim Supply
for Great Britain to charge an additional 15 per cent duty on imports, the Bank of Canada should not divulge to that committee the amount of the loan granted to Great Britain and the rate of interest charged?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: In reply to the first question, Mr. Speaker, I think if interim supply were passed in reasonable time we could see that the electricity bills are paid. Even if we cannot "see" they are, we would take steps to undertake that they are paid on time. With regard to the second question, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the two matters are quite unrelated.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Following the announcement to the effect that the Bank of Canada had granted a loan to Great Britain at a low rate of interest, did some Canadian provinces apply to the Bank of Canada for similar loans?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wish to correct the preamble to that question, Mr. Speaker. I said nothing about a small rate of interest. I said I was not prepared to disclose the rate of interest but that it approximated the market rates. The answer to my hon. friend's question is no.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $740,710,974.77, being the aggregate of
(a)	two twelfths ol that total of all of the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, as reduced, except finance item 15, mines and technical surveys item 25, national research council item 10, and transport items 15 and 25 for which the proportion is one twelfth and atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 20, forestry item 25 and legislation item 20 for Which no proportion is being released, $651,829,576.84;
(b)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of public works item 70 (schedule A), of the said main estimates, $666,666.67;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of fisheries items 5 and 10, legislation item 5, mines and technical surveys item 70, post office item 1 and public works item 40 (schedule B), of the said main estimates, $20,263,800.00;
(d)	two twelfths of all of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, and loans,

investments and advances items L12a, L17a and L37a for which no proportion is being released, $20,612,522.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103a (schedule C), of the said supplementary estimates (A), $872,966.67;
(f)	nine twelfths of the total of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (B), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $46,215,108.75;
(g)	two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103b (schedule D), of the said supplementary estimates (B), $250,333.34;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
["Ten o'clock.\nProgress reported."]
Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock on Friday I was briefly pointing out to the committee the undesirable situation in which the Yukon and Northwest Territories find themselves at present by not having full representation in parliament. I had made the point that although for the first time since 1962 the Canadian northland had members of parliament, the situation had not yet been corrected in terms of representation in the other place. I had made the point that at the present time there are in excess of 40,000 Canadian citizens living north of the 60th parallel, yet neither the Yukon nor the Northwest Territories had been allowed representation in the other place. I believe I made the point that even though there may be historical reasons, a province such as Prince Edward Island with a population of 107,000 had four senatorial representatives in parliament. It seems to me that the political development of our northern areas warrants this move.
One need only think back to last year, when we had legislation in this chamber intended to divide the Northwest Territories into two separate parts. Presumably that was going to be a step in the political evolution of that area. As another example of just how unsure of itself this government is, I point out that that proposed legislation was sent to a committee, and we have heard nothing about it since. Nor has the government reintroduced that measure.
Mr. Chairman, I mention these facts because I intend to give notice that at the time the formula for repatriating the constitution is brought before the house I will expect the government to have some sort of plan ready along the lines I have mentioned. It seems to me this would be the logical course of development, not only in terms of the political evolution of the Northwest Territories but also to ensure that all Canada is fully represented in parliament. This can

only be done if the Yukon and Northwest Territories are allowed representation in the other place.
I do not know what answer the government can give at the present time for overlooking this matter during the last 18 months, nor am I particularly interested in that answer. I hope all hon. members of this house will support me when I say that in a few months' time it will be completely unacceptable to us as Canadians to have the government bring in a formula for amending the constitution without first having taken the steps necessary to give the Yukon and Northwest Territories full representation in parliament.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I did listen very carefully to the debate on Friday, and it seems to me that at the present time the federal government has the authority to create a province or provinces in the Canadian northland. If the proposed formula is adopted then it will require two thirds of the provinces, including either Quebec or Ontario, before the federal authority can create a new province. Speaking as the member for the Northwest Territories I can assure this committee that for several reasons the implications of such a formula are frightening. They are frightening because the present federal government has never shown any interest in the north country. Certainly that has caused a great deal of distrust and will remain the source of distrust as long as the present Minister of Finance holds that portfolio. One need only think back a few years, when that individual headed a royal commission on Canadian economic prospects, and stated in effect that if people living in the maritimes could not make a go of it they should move to Toronto. In other words his solution to the problems facing people who live in depressed areas is for those people to move out. He certainly wrote off that 60 per cent of Canada which lies north of the 55th parallel, as having any real future as far as our economy is concerned.
If the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory are to be dependent upon the whim of one province, let us say Quebec, for example, before they are allowed full economic and political status, they will find themselves in an impossible position. If one thinks back a few months he will realize that the present government made great political capital everywhere in the southern part of this country by accusing the previous administration of throwing away thousands of dollars in the northland. There is no doubt in my mind that the
Interim Supply
Liberal government won hundreds of thousands of votes in the southern area of Canada by writing off the Yukon and Northwest Territories. That is a frightening situation. My colleague the hon. member for Yukon is unavoidably absent today, but I can assure this committee that he also is alarmed by this situation.
In the last two days we have seen examples of what can happen to us if we become dependent upon the good graces of the other provinces in Canada. For example, one can easily imagine the difficulties we might encounter if we had to obtain the approval of the province of Quebec before provinces could be created out of either the Yukon or Northwest Territories; and that would be the situation should the suggested formula be adopted. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the province of Quebec has expressed a great deal of interest in the offshore islands which lie immediately adjacent to the coast of that province. One can easily envisage the sort of blackmail position in which we could find ourselves in the Northwest Territories if we were seeking full political status as a province, having to obtain concurrence of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I am not discussing the merits of the suggestion that the offshore islands should belong to Quebec.


The Chairman:: Order, please. Perhaps I will be allowed to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are many conversations being carried on in this chamber, and that it is very difficult to follow the hon. member who has the floor.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the benefit of those who did not hbar what I said because of a preoccupation with a little caucus across the way, I suggested that the offshore islands off the coast of Quebec, which at the present time are considered a part of the Northwest Territories, might well for administrative purposes, or for all purposes, belong to the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Hear, hear.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Indeed, I personally support such a suggestion, because I think it would make geographic sense. As hon. members may realize, the problem exists because when the boundaries of the Northwest Territories were being determined they were not determined in terms of co-ordinates or metes and bounds, but in terms of high water marks. When one considers the straits which

Interim Supply
separate Baffin land from Quebec and realizes that at times and in places the tide there is in excess of 60 feet, he can see what happens when the tide goes out. All the land that is exposed belongs to the Northwest Territories. This is an illogical situation and should be corrected. I know my hon. friend from Lapointe has pressed for this before, but I am merely using this as an example of the sort of problem that would occur should it be necessary for the federal government to obtain the consent of two thirds of the provinces, including either Quebec or Ontario, in order to create a new province in the northland.
There is one other current problem worthy of mention in this context. Only a few weeks ago the premier of British Columbia expressed a new found interest in annexing the Yukon territory and part of Mackenzie territory. That was not a laughing matter, or considered as a joke. Nor was it a display of the bad manners of the newly rich by Mr. Bennett.
It was not just an attempt on his part to become prime minister by buying up Canada even though we know he already has $100 million worth of Quebec in his pocket. It was a serious move on his part to take over a large section of Canada. He too recognizes the policy and planning vacuum that has existed in the Northwest Territories since the change of government. He knows that nothing new has been initiated by the Liberal government in the last two years. He knows that the people of the Yukon and Mackenzie districts are discontented because of the neglect they have experienced once again at the hands of a Liberal government.
If the premier of British Columbia had said two years ago that he wanted to take over the Yukon and part of the Northwest Territories he would have been laughed at throughout the country, and to the people who live in the territories it would have been unthinkable. However, today in both the Yukon and the Mackenzie districts there are people who are seriously pondering the offer made by Premier Bennett. They are doing so because they have come to the conclusion that the present federal government has no interest in developing the area and has not retained the impetus initiated by the previous administration, and therefore they had better give serious consideration to the offer made by the premier of British Columbia.
The people who live in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories do not intend to be pawns in federal-provincial conferences in

the future. Why should our status from the point of view of being provinces be dependent upon the acquisitiveness of various provincial premiers who recognize that in Ottawa at the present time there is a weak federal leader and that this is an appropriate time for them to swoop in because they know that all their demands will be met? We in the territories are most alarmed over the policy followed by the present government of yielding to whatever pressures are exerted. We are alarmed because we are totally dependant on the federal authority for the time being, and if at the bargaining table the only thing the federal government is going to consider is political strength you can imagine how we in the north' feel with only one lonesome member from the Yukon and another from the Northwest Territories. Only two federal seats are at stake, and if the government intends to follow a policy of responding only to political pressure related to the distribution of seats you can imagine our alarm and concern with regard to the situation.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member to bring to his attention that his time has expired, unless he has the committee's permission to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Winkler:: Who said no?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Shall the resolution carry? The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, it is always instructive to listen to hon. members across the floor, who as long as they are speaking think the house should pay the closest attention to their words, but when members in other parts of the house dare to get up to speak there is the clucking of hens-


Eric Alfred Winkler: The quacking of ducks.


Norman Platt Lambert: -or there are shouts of "filibuster" or what have you. It seems that, as in the past, divine right is again vested in the Liberal party, and they believe they are the only people with any knowledge or intelligence. They seem to subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility. I do not know whether that would apply to them in all respects, but certainly in matters political they believe they are infallible.

The subject we are discussing this afternoon and which was discussed on Friday is one that was raised by members on this side at the first opportunity because of certain events that occurred in mid October. I make no apology at all for participating in the debate on the question of the amendment of the constitution. I make no pretence whatsoever of being a constitutional expert, but in the light of the comments that are being made with greater and greater frequency throughout the country I must say it is incumbent upon us to raise questions about these highly important events which took place in mid October.
We all know that Her Majesty was here prior to the 15th of October, and that on that particular day a communique was issued by the federal government and the provincial premiers dealing with the matter of the amendment and patriation of the constitution. Stripped of its aura of self satisfaction the communique was more than ever unenlightening. Therefore we must ask questions in regard to this matter.
There was an attempt the other day by the Minister of Transport to say that we were wrong in raising these questions. He said that the hon. member for Bow River, the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Queens were wrong in posing questions about this matter because the formula, he claimed, was the self-same formula as in 1961, with no changes. This I question. I have very great reservations with regard to the equality of positions as between 1961 and now. Even if there is a similarity with 1961 in certain respects, and there is, it must be remembered that the proposals were made within a conference and that while certain details of the negotiations did get out, no document was deposited in the house to indicate any agreement. Actually we are being presented with a fait accompli.
In that regard I would refer to a story under the byline of Anthony Westell which appeared in the Globe and Mail of October 22. I disagree entirely with Mr. Westell's conclusion in his last paragraph. He is expressing his opinion and I disagree with it, but I will say he is factually correct when he says that within the last two years there has arisen what might be called a form of superparliament, if one can really use the word "parliament" with regard to dominion-provincial conferences. A fourth level of government has crept into the picture, because there have been any number of dominion-provincial conferences at which major agree-
Interim Supply
ments were made which were then presented to the house as something already binding upon the house because the government was bound.
We have yet to discuss the implications, in regard to the pension plan, of the step taken last April. It was a very quiet, under the table, cloak and dagger sort of proposition. Ministers at Quebec were going in the back door while other ministers were going out the front door, neither knowing that the others were present. Provinces were not being consulted beforehand and were being presented with agreements to such an extent that Premier Robarts has now said we must bring a halt to this type of procedure.
In so far as this parliament is concerned, we are now being presented with an agreement, and gracious only knows what would be the implications if this parliament were not to accept this agreement between the federal government and the provinces or were to amend it in some major particular. I must say that I believe it is all right to consult on matters of this kind, but the hands of this parliament must not be bound. I think it is high time hon. members raised this question. Quoting one paragraph from the article by Mr. Westell:
Federal-provincial conferences are becoming the real seats of power-the places at which national
policies are set in private to guide 11 governments. But there is no legislature or equivalent authority and prestige to check and balance this exercise of executive power.
Then there is this paragraph with which I disagree entirely:
There may have been a time when the federal parliament could have filled this role. But not the present parliament, which is low in public esteem and in which most members seem to have little concept of their changed position.
I disagree with that because I think hon. members, at least in the opposition, are exercised as I know other hon. members like the hon. member for Greenwood are exercised. I am sure there are many hon. members on the government side, if we hear correctly about some of their discussions in caucus, who are also very concerned about this. Now that this agreement of October 15 will be coming before us, it is fundamentally important that we must raise questions which cannot be discussed and analysed on short notice. We need the advice of constitutional experts who will examine all the implications of this proposed agreement. In due course-I do not know when the Prime Minister stated this

Interim Supply
proposal would come before us for discussion-we must be fully prepared to analyse the problem.
In his remarks on Friday afternoon the hon. member for Bow River-I have not got the page of Hansard immediately before me -made some reference to Canada being the first nation in the whole British commonwealth to enjoy full religious liberty. I was astounded to see that usual symbol in Hansard, "Some hon. members, oh, oh.", being an indication that a number of members did not believe him. Obviously this exclamation came from across the floor.
I would point out to hon. gentlemen, and this is a very brief run through of history, that if we look back to pre-1763, the inhabitants of Canada, whether they were Roman Catholic or Huguenot, enjoyed the same rights of freedom of worship and security of properties. With the treaty of Paris in 1763 these same rights were guaranteed to Roman Catholics. They were confirmed by the Quebec Act in 1791, and they were extended to the new province of Upper Canada with the act of union just a few years later.
In the year following, with the passage of the Roman Catholic emancipation bill, all disabilities for Roman Catholics were removed in the remaining portions of Canada, that is the maritime provinces. This is a recognized fact that is all too frequently forgotten. Under the aegis of Westminster we have enjoyed in this country full religious liberty without the disabilities that applied for so many years even in Britain. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will correct their estimation of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River in the early part of his speech on Friday afternoon.
Let us look at the proposed amendment to the constitution. Briefly, if we look at the categories under the formula we find there is, first of all, the 100 per cent consent of the provinces for the federal parliament to amend provisions of the constitution relating to (a) the powers of the legislature of a province to make laws; (b) the rights or privileges guaranteed or secured by the constitution of Canada to the legislature or government of a province; (c) the assets or properties of a province; (d) the use of the English or French language and, further, the senatorial floor or representation of a province in the House of Commons. Almost in the same category is the right of a province to-deal with education, except that Newfoundland is in a class by itself. This province

cannot have anything to say about education generally, and no other provinces can have anything to say about education in the province of Newfoundland. This is a result of the confederation act of 1949.
There is another category in which the amendment would affect one or more but not all the provinces, and in this case only those affected would have to give their consent. Almost all the remaining amendments must be concurred in by legislatures of at least two thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population of Canada according to the latest general census. We know that there are entrenched areas and that they are of long standing. It is agreed also that if you have amendments that affect only certain provinces, then those provinces should consent. This has been accepted. What I am concerned about is this two thirds of the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.
It was indicated the other day that this was not the essence of the formula of 1961. In 1961 there was no proposal to do away with section 91(1) which had been passed in 1949. Yet if we examine the proposal I put it to hon. members that it goes much further, because the first numbered paragraph of the proposed constitution of Canada amendment act reads as follows:
Subject to this part, the parliament of Canada may make laws repealing, amending or re-enacting any provision of the constitution of Canada.
In other words that is the paragraph granting the maximum of power. Then all the exceptions follow, and they are legion. Under paragraph 2 we have seen that the four points, the entrenched clauses, are included in section 2, and section 3 deals with the case of "less than all of the provinces," and with the case where the affected provinces must all give their consent. Section 4 deals with education, but section 5 says this:
No law made under the authority of this part,
The language is clear and unequivocal.
-affecting any provision of the constitution of Canada not coming within sections 2, 3 or 4-
Which I have already dealt with.
-of this act shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislatures of at least two thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population of Canada according to the latest general census.
In other words no amendments, unless covered by those categories enunciated in sections 2, 3 and 4, may come into force unless there is the concurrence of at least two thirds of the provinces in number representing 50 per cent of the population.

Then paragraph 6 says:
Notwithstanding anything in the constitution of Canada the parliament of Canada may exclusively make laws from time to time amending the constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada and the Senate and the House of Commons-
In case anyone has any illusions as to how much this means, he has only to turn to the British North America Act where it will be found that the executive government of Canada is covered by sections 9 to 16 of that act, and even there some seven-no, eight- limitations have been introduced to this exclusive right of jurisdiction, and they are in part those that were included previously in section 91(1),
I suppose this is the quid pro quo, but frankly we in the parliament of Canada under these proposals are ceding to the provinces far more extensive rights than they previously had. As I pointed out the other night in the debate on the redistribution bill this house had a right to determine its composition, but now we will have to seek the approval of the provinces if we are to change the proportionate representation of any province in this house. In other words, if it were necessary to cushion the effects of redistribution in any particular province, or if it were necessary to grant a province more seats than it would be entitled to under the application of the mathematical formula contained in section 51 of the B.N.A. Act, we would have to obtain the consent of two thirds of the provinces to do this.
If this is to be the case, then I can assure hon. members there will be a great deal of jockeying and horse trading at any dominion-provincial conference at which the question of the representation of a province in the House of Commons comes up for discussion and settlement. In many ways this may make mockery of the principles of redistribution if one is to follow the logic and principle of the act which is now before us.
Next we come to the delegation of legislative authority under the proposed section, 94(A). One would have thought there would have been a free exchange in this regard, but this is not the case; because the federal government will be able to legislate in four sectors of provincial jurisdiction, those covered in subsections 6, 10, 13 and 16 of section 92; subsection 6 covering the establishment and maintenance of public and reformatory prisons in and for the provinces, subsection 10 having to do with local works and undertakings, subsection 13 with property and civil 20220-612
Interim Supply
rights, and subsection 16 with generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in a province.
This right of the federal government to legislate in provincial sectors will come about only if the government of Canada has consulted with all provinces-
-and the enactment of the statute is of concern to fewer than four of the provinces and the provinces so declared by the parliament of Canada to be concerned have under the authority of their legislatures consented to the enactment of such a statute.
In addition to that, in other cases we must have the consent of at least four of the provinces to the operation of such a statute. Then we get the reverse side of the coin, and the provinces will now be able to legislate- -in relation to any matter coming within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
However, there is a provision that:
Prior to the enactment thereof the parliament of Canada has consented to the enactment of such a statute by the legislature of that province, and A similar statute has under the authority of subsection (3) of this section been enacted by the legislatures of at least three other provinces.
In other words the consent of four provinces and of the federal government will entitle those four provinces to legislate in a federal field. As has been questioned by certain editorial writers, what stand would the federal government take if, say, the four most populous and wealthiest provinces decided they wanted to invade the fields of trade and commerce or customs or immigration? We have had attempts by some of the provinces in the past to do this. But if Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta decided among themselves that they would make a certain demand on the federal government and wished to enter into the field of immigration, for example, how could the federal government resist this pressure? Up to the present time it has been clear that any such attempt could be resisted either across a bargaining table or in the courts, in that it is unconstitutional; but if these amendments go through, this argument goes by the board. Only then could the political strength of the federal government withstand such concerted pressure from four provinces.
I am pointing this out as one of the prices that we may be asked to pay. This house is going to be asked to accept this constitutional amendment; the people of Canada are going to be asked to accept it. But what is the price? Is the achievement to be merely the one that no longer will we have to go to Westminster to amend our constitution; that


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, it is not often in the house that we are considering an action of the government which offers an appropriate stepping-stone for us all to take a look at the general trend of government action over the last while, to see whether there is any pattern emerging out of government action, to note the behaviour of the government and the provinces, what its present effect is on Canada and whether it gives any indication as to where similar action is likely to lead us in the future.
I certainly think that when the government has announced that it has reached an agreement with the provinces on a method of amending the constitution, all of us who take seriously our responsibilities as members of the Canadian House of Commons should discuss this question in a very broad terms and try the best we can to see whether there is any trend as to where we are going, with the piecemeal legislation that now and then comes up. I am sure we are all aware that now and then the government takes a step, or a measure is passed, which seems to nibble away at a freedom, which seems to limit the economic activity of certain people; and many times we shrug it off and say, "Well, it is necessary for the greatest good at this time that some slight inconvenience be experienced". But such nibbling away does add up to a general erosion of freedom; it can mean the weakening of the country as a whole, and certainly a gradual limitation of the power of the federal government to effect the economic welfare of the people of Canada generally can lead to the impotence of the government.
While this measure is not before us directly, I think now is a good time to take

a look at the various factors which I believe are important, to get us in the state of mind in which we can properly consider the importance of the change in the constitution. Certainly many members have already indicated that they feel this agreement with the provinces amounts to a further reduction in the power of the federal government. I suggest that all of us should look seriously right now at how much power the federal government has and how much power it has to have. I get the feeling sometimes that because we have had so much pressure from the provinces we have been altogether too preoccupied with the growing responsibilities of the provinces and their inability to cope with these responsibilities out of limited resources. Also they have not seriously enough considered the fact that federal responsibility is growing, while federal capacity for action and influence on all these factors has been eroded away, and not just by giving in to the provinces.
When confederation started I am sure most of us would have agreed that the Fathers of Confederation laid great emphasis on the necessity for having a strong central government. They did not give to the provinces those fields which had the greatest influence on Canada's economic status or which gave the provincial governments the power to have a great influence on Canada's economic status. At that time it was the internal problems of the provinces-the problems of vast distance, the immaturity of the nation, etc.-which made them see clearly why the federal government, if it were to bind together such a loose confederation of provinces, had to have the main power in its hands. I suggest that if we are to approach the problem today it behooves us to look and see whether those factors have been changed so much that the same thinking does not still apply.
It is true that today we are in a much different world from the world of a hundred years ago, but I suggest that each other nation in the world today is in a different position too. Let us look at some of the outside factors which show that power has been taken away from the federal government, its capacity to manage, to conduct and influence the economic welfare of the people in the country. Trade situations have changed. We are now more than ever depending on international trade, balance of payments, tariff agreements and such general agreements as GATT. Each one of those limits the capacity of the federal government to be able freely to influence the destiny of our own people. Every 20220-612i
Interim Supply
time the federal government binds itself to a new agreement to limit tariffs it must of necessity limit its own capacity to influence the opportunities for our own industrialists now more than ever dependant on international markets and resist the impact of potential importers into this country.
I suggest that we consider what has happened in Europe, where nations with much longer established governments, with in many cases much larger populations, governments without our problems of vast distances, transportation and difference of climate to contend with, nations with vast pools of skilled labour to call upon, much experience in industrialized machinery, in all of which we are just acquiring experience, have themselves found it was not within the legislative competence of their own governments to influence enough their own economic chances for survival, let alone spreading it down through the subdivisions or sections of the country. The federal governments of such countries have not had the power, acting alone, to be of sufficient use to private entrepreneurs within their own countries, so as to keep up with the cry for a rising standard of living, but have found it necessary to give some of their own economic independence to an economic union. In light of this I suggest we must look very carefully when we see in this country a strong move in the other direction.
Certainly Canada as a country has as many problems as any of these nations to which I have referred. We are blessed with perhaps a certain greater natural wealth in this country. But we do not have the wealth of manpower. We do not have the skills of some of them, and we do have the disadvantage of great distance.
I suggest that any thinking person who considers that other nations of the world have become more and more preoccupied with economic union, are spending more and more time trying to negotiate satisfactory trade agreements, have tried to bolster the purchasing power underdeveloped countries and tried to work out a lessening of tariff barriers, etc., so that the federal governments in those countries may give some assistance to their industrialists, will come to the conclusion that we would be very shortsighted indeed not to take every opportunity we have to give our federal government the chance to be of influence in that type of work.
I think that one of our major difficulties has always been the increasing demand for social justice, each of the provinces finding itself beset with new and increasing demands

Interim Supply
for more and more money and becoming more and more aware of the limitation of its own action or its own ability to act, owing to constitutional difficulties. The provinces were given only certain powers. They can act only in certain ways, can influence industry only to a certain extent and can raise only so much money. When a bewildered provincial treasurer or provincial premier tries to find ways and means of satisfying the cry for new services he must find it very frustrating indeed to discover his hands are tied because the federal government has so much power, power which he might himself find useful.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that there is anything wrong with any of the provincial premiers who are striving to get for their provinces a little more power if they feel, and honestly feel, they can use that power to better the lot of the peoples in their provinces. But I do think we should be aware that that problem is not unique to any one province or to any one government which might be in power. I think we should examine the demands made by a province and remember that generally the demands made by a *province represent the viewpoint of the government of that day. We must remember that when the government of the day says that there is only one solution to a certain problem, part of that cry may be a political one and part an actual one. But certainly we do know that there are different political governments in the provinces, and we have heard enough, from some of the premiers at [DOT]least, to know that there are many and .various approaches to economic affairs which these different governments reflect.
I should like to single out the government of the province of Quebec for a moment, just as an example of what has been going on. I suggest that the pressure put on by the government of the province of Quebec is explained, in part at least, by political pressure rather than just economic pressure. We .are aware that there has been a resurgence of interest in government and government status and in the role of government in that province. There has become an awareness- and a voice to express that awareness as seldom heard before-that there are many depressed areas in the province. There is an awareness that the agricultural industry, for instance, is not faring as well as the agricultural industries in other parts of the country. Certainly when this awareness is coupled with a very high pressured political campaign to convince the country that that 
province has the best government it can get and that it is working the hardest, we can understand why the ordinary citizen in that province and perhaps throughout the country as well-and sometimes those in the government itself-fail to appreciate that a lot of this pressure is political propaganda. It is to the welfare politically of the Liberal government in the province of Quebec to convince the rest of the country that there is only one solution to Quebec's economic difficulties, to say that there is no help other than by giving more power to provincial governments so that they will be able to solve those difficulties for themselves. We have observed some of that type of thing in Mr. Bennett's approach to this problem in British Columbia.
Since we in this house are politicians, we are not blind to the advantages to be reaped by provincial premiers who can convince the rest of the country that the only thing wrong with their governments is that they do not have sufficient power to do those things which they in their wisdom think are necessary, and that the big bad government in Ottawa will not let them have those powers. The present government has been politically disappointing along this line. Certainly we are all aware of the Liberal government's ability to sell itself as the government of this country which can handle all the difficulties. In considering the supposed generosity of the Liberal party, I have never been able to comprehend why it farmed out this area to the provincial Liberal government of Quebec. I should think that the first people to seize on this gradual erosion of federal power to excuse their own incompetence as a government would be the Liberal politicians sitting opposite.
Certainly if we are going to consider taking away any further power from the federal government we must also consider the problems the federal government will have to meet, and whether those powers are sufficient to meet those problems. We must consider the difficulties facing the people of Canada and the necessity for increasing the standard of living and services available. How shall those problems be met across Canada. I for one believe that most people in this country are Canadians first. While they are proud of their own provinces they readily agree that the standard of living available to all Canadians in all provinces should be considered in the best interests of Canada as a whole.
We must be wary of giving economic powers to the provinces, because we should

attack these problems first as a nation. We must consider the capacity of the provinces to raise their standards of living if we are to divest the federal government of some of its authority in order that provincial governments can take care of the provincial economic situation.
Earlier I referred to the necessity in Europe of creating economic unions. Those of us who have considered some of the problems of increasing Canadian exports are very much aware of nations such as Japan which have larger populations, and have greater productive capacity as a result of using devices such as state trading cartels, and prohibiting private manufacturers from competing with each other on the world's markets. We are aware that communist nations use the governments themselves as trading agencies. If we are going to give some of the economic authority in Canada to the provincial governments in order that the provinces may take a purely regional and local approach to the economic situation we are going to be very shortsighted.
The economic problems in Canada are such that all the assistance and help the federal government has been able to give private enterprise in the past has proved in many cases to be inadequate. Should we complicate the matter by giving extra legislative competence to provincial governments which will move in the direction of assisting only those industries within the province? I am sure such a situation would result in industries within the borders of one province having a great advantage over competing industries in another province. In contrasting the conditions of government within one province with those within another we can at this time find situations where concessions given by provincial governments are almost tantamount to tariff barriers. Certainly there is no difference between imposing a tariff between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario and the effect of one of those provinces lowering the tax on an industry within its border by 5 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, we are already beset by problems of this type. How far is it fair for a province to go in attracting industry to its area? When do the concessions given by provinces amount to penalties imposed upon the manufacturers in other provinces? If we are going to increase the power of the provincial governments to the point where they can influence the economy of the provinces to the extent I have suggested, then certainly we are going to increase the provincial potential
Interim Supply
for making these unfair adjustments. We know that it is unconstitutional for provinces to impose tariffs between provinces. Unless we get our thinking straight and realize that in today's economic world every nation is concentrating on obtaining a fair trade situation, we will find ourselves in difficulty. I suggest that every bit of power possible should be left with the federal government so that our economic and trade problems can be handled on a nation-wide basis.
The feeling of some provinces that there will be an immediate advantage to the provinces as a result of this transfer of authority is understandable. However, I suggest the provincial governments are thinking only in terms of the immediate advantage. I do not blame premiers for coming to Ottawa, suggesting they want the power to do certain things, and I suppose they have the right to point out to their voters that this would remedy certain situations. However, we as members of the federal parliament are duty bound to consider these problems on a nation-wide scale. We are especially duty bound to consider the powers of the provincial governments and those powers which they are new seeking. No matter how inadequate we feel at times we must look at Canada and its position in the world. We must consider the economic factors which effect the economy of this country and, above all, remember that the responsibilities of the federal government are growing even as provincial responsibilities are growing.
This government has given some indication of its own in ability to cope with the increasing demand for funds. Certainly those of us who supported the previous government are not likely to forget quickly the derision and condemnation of the deficits the Conservative government had to face. The present government came into office partly at least because it was able to picture the problems Canada faced as needing only the assistance of the Liberal experts for their solution, but one would think that after the length of time they have been in office, during which period they have run up bigger deficits than ever and have yielded constantly to pressures from the provinces, they would begin to realize that they do have a problem. It is not just a matter of getting the masterminds in and the dopes out, as they used to say, and I do not pretend that that prescription even applies today. We need to; do more than just get the dopes out. We need to take a look at the pressures and try to wipe out some of the politics in deal-

Interim Supply
ing with these matters. We need to try to understand how far politics will carry us and how far a little sound planning will go.
There should be no more piecemeal consideration of whether the country can afford a pension plan. The pension plan has to be viewed in the light of its effects on industry and what it will do for the provinces and their ability to finance the carrying out of their obligations. I suggest that many members of the house have not bothered to look at the whole picture and try to piece things together. I am sure that many, like myself are just a little afraid to look at the whole general picture, say that it is a bit beyond them and ask where the experts are. I think the only experts we can rely upon in approaching a problem of this sort are the members of parliament who are elected to represent the people of the country.
In approaching many of these problems the government has emphasized its desire to cooperate with the provinces, but in my opinion it has really been neglecting its duty. To the federal government co-operative federalism means: Give up all responsibility to a conference of provincial premiers and let them handle these matters. I have seen such an erosion of federal powers that I sometimes feel that the powers left to the federal government have been reduced to a level comparable to the capabilities of the present government to deal with these matters. This is a disgraceful situation, and I hope that when we are considering amendments to the constitution our attitude will be that we will not give even a fraction of an inch. Things have gone so far under the present government that every day we must look to see what power we can get back into federal hands which has been so unnecessarily thrown away.
If the present members of the cabinet feel they want to divest themselves of as much power as they can so that the job of governing the country may be reduced to their level of competence, it is up to us as members of the house not to let them do it. If they want to give away their responsibilities I submit they should divest themselves of those responsibilities immediately by resigning, so that competent individuals can take over the government.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, but due to the fact that the Conservatives intend to monopolize the entire time of this house to talk about every matter possible on the occasion of interim supply, I would like to say a few words this afternoon con-

cerning certain persons from Montreal who are visiting Toronto, and I would like to make some comments respecting a news story which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of October 30. Here are the title and the text of that item:

Baptist: Catholics Support Separatism.
A French speaking Baptist minister from Montreal said here yesterday that the Roman Catholic church in Quebec supports the separatist movement. Rev. W. H. Frey, pastor of Montreal's French Evangelical Baptist church, was a delegate to the annual convention of the Canadian Evangelical Baptist fellowship which met this week in High Park Baptist church. The fellowship represents 100,000 adherents and nearly 250 churches, 20 of them in Quebec.
"If the Roman Catholic church were against separatism she would not have failed to thunder against it, as she has against everything else she opposes." Mr. Frey said in an interview. The "strange silence" of the Catholic hierarchy in Quebec about separatism could only be interpreted as tacit approval, Mr. Frey said.
He said that although there has been a "thaw" in Catholic-Protestant relations in Quebec since Pope John XXIII started the ecumenical movement, Quebec is still a "church-dominated society."
"Converts to our Baptist faith from Catholicism have told me that they had only learned to love English speaking Canadians after the conversion," Mr. Frey said.

Mr. Chairman, it is statements such as those which undermine the good understanding between the various groups which make up the Canadian nation.
When Pastor Frey states that the Roman Catholic church approves of separatism, he knows he is lying shamelessly to those he is addressing.
When he maintains that it is only when Roman Catholics are converted to the Baptist church that they learn to love their English speaking fellow citizens, again Mr. Frey is lying shamelessly to his audience.
We find in Quebec, especially because we live in Quebec, that cordial relations do exist between the elements-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve will please allow me to interrupt him for a moment to remind him that the committee is now dealing with interim supply and any contribution to this debate should refer to the matter at hand, at least in some way.
At present we are discussing questions relating to public administration.
I do not see how what the hon. member is discussing at the present time is connected in any way with the administration of the state or government business.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we are studying interim supply amounting to $740 million.
I am convinced that a part of this amount will be apportioned to the department of national health. Now, if it covers expenditures by this department, I submit that the case of mental health I am referring to could be dealt with under appropriations of this department.


Lucien Lamoureux: I believe there is a farfetched relation between the hon. member's contribution to the debate and the resolution now under consideration. I would therefore ask him to limit his remarks to the resolution now before us.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, may I very humbly suggest that all the members who speak of the constitution, for instance, do not relate their remarks too much to the appropriations of $740 million now under consideration. The speeches of those who for some ten days have dealt with the relations between the various ethnic groups in this country do not either have a direct connection with the expenditures of $740 million for which the government seeks approval.
I would ask you to be as patient with me as you have been with the Conservative members, who have said nothing for ten days but who have nevertheless spoken and dealt with subjects of much less importance than that about which I am speaking at the present time. I wish I had approval in order that I may resume my remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would ask the hon. member, for the sake of this discussion, to relate his comments to the resolution before us.
The hon. member is referring to certain comments which were made about the constitution during this debate. He will admit that to a certain extent the constitution falls under public administration and certainly under the Minister of Justice.
On the other hand, the government can in no way be responsible for the statements made by the person referred to by the hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, once more I humbly submit that this matter falls under the Department of National Health and Welfare. I do not wish to make many comments on this item, but I would point out that some people deserve our attention, even with respect to the very large estimates now before us.
What I wish to point out is that the question of national unity, the understanding be-
Interim Supply
tween Canadians, does fall under the government. It has responsibilities in this respect.
Even if the constitution may fall under the Minister of Justice, in my opinion the government has responsibilities as regards persons who try by all possible means to sow hatred and discord in this country; it should denounce those who endeavour to divide the people of Canada instead of uniting them.
And here, as a French Canadian from the province of Quebec-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Rémi Paul: Does the hon. member feel that the speech delivered by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) during the last week end was a contribution toward national unity?


David Réal Caouette: I have not yet had the
opportunity to read the speech made by the hon. member for Port Arthur, although I have heard comments about it, and as far as his speech is concerned I was told that he spoke as an irresponsible man.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Port Arthur might deny it; however, I will certainly read the speech he made in Toronto over the week end and I will report in due time to the hon. member who asked me a question.
Before being interrupted, I was saying that it is as a French Canadian and as a practising Roman Catholic that I object to such statements, stupid statements aimed only at pitting people against one another.
The Roman Catholic clergy in the province of Quebec has never taken a stand for or against separatism. It is not within its purview and the priests will tell you so just as they will tell you that the Roman Catholic church stands behind no party, be it Liberal, Conservative or Social Credit; it is not its role. The Roman Catholic church in our province, as elsewhere, has a part to play which has to do with the salvation of the soul; as for the salvation of the body, this is our role and the Roman Catholic church leaves it to us.
I am sorry to see publicity given to reports such as this one in a city such as Toronto and even Montreal. They are untrue and accomplish no purpose in terms of the national good. We are here as federal representatives to serve this nation, and I think

Interim Supply
that we have a moral obligation to denounce those, wherever they come from, who try, in such odious ways, to divide the people in the various parts of Canada.
These are the few remarks I wanted to make today on these estimates amounting to $740 million which we are now discussing with the rather full co-operation of the Conservatives who are looking forward to the Christmas holidays.


Mr. Mariineau:: Mr. Chairman, while we are dealing with the interim supply, I wish, like some other colleagues, to express certain views regarding a problem of capital importance, that of Canadian unity.
I take this occasion to comment on some statements made by certain of my colleagues. I hasten to add that these are colleagues whom, I admit, are competent and of good faith and whose opinions I respect also. I hope that they also will respect my views and that they will let me express them as clearly as possible.
Three very interesting questions have been raised in regard to the constitution during this debate.
It has been said, if I am not mistaken, that confederation act was not an agreement and, in short, that it was an ordinary piece of legislation just like any other. It was added, however, that when the British North America Act was passed by the British parliament, as it was wont to do, it was necessary to remove any suggestion of an agreement.
I am against the concept that the British North America Act would only be a mere piece of legislation. I maintain that it was an agreement binding the provinces in a union based on the good faith of the two main ethnic groups then constituting the Canadian people.
The B.N.A. Act is, in the tradition of British public law, on the same footing as the great pieces of British legislation which are the very basis of the personal freedoms and even of our western civilization.
I have in mind for instance, the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the petition of rights and all the others. In order to convince oneself that in the minds of all the participants who united the North American colonies in 1867 an agreement was really being entered into, only one has to read the discussions held in the British House of Commons at that time. One can read, for instance, the words of the sponsor of this legis-
[Mr. Caouette.l
lation in the British parliament, Lord Carnarvon, who stated:
To those resolutions-
He was referring to the Quebec and Charlottetown resolutions, which have resulted in the adoption of the act itself.
To those resolutions, the British provinces of North America gave their consent, and the measures based upon those resolutions must be accepted as a union treaty.
Then it was said that this was an essential pact. And, if we look at it closely, we realize that such was the case, because if it had been merely a piece of legislation of the British parliament, why would the consent of the participating provinces have been required previously? Why would not all the British provinces have been united, even those which had not given their consent?
It is therefore obvious that the constituting act of our constitutional existence is a pact and was considered as such by the Canadian participants themselves, the Fathers of Con-feration, and by the British legislators. In addition, the main judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada and, especially, of the judicial committee of the privy council all confirm the theory of a pact between the provinces but mostly between the two ethnical groups. In fact, for nearly a century no French Canadian living in Quebec or elsewhere has ever thought that it was anything but a freely accepted union of all to form a new entity, Canada. Under the circumstances, there could have been no question of either direct or indirect coercion or domination.
Mr. Chairman, some astounding things have been said. It has been claimed that some plot had been contrived and reference was even made to an assassination, for words of exceptional violence have been uttered in the course of this debate on the constitution, one which surely should be marked by levelheadedness and complete objectivity. It was said that the present government had contrived a sinister plot to abdicate its responsibilities in order to decentralize constitutional and administrative authority in this country and, as a result, achieve the dissolution and disintegration of confederation itself.
I have made my share of speeches in this house and never to speak on behalf or uphold the cause of the present federal government. If any charge could be laid against this government, I would rather accuse it of being a centralizing government striving under the guise of that co-operative federalism formula, to deprive the provinces of much of their powers. Therefore, I say that there

does not seem to exist any immediate or remote conspiracy to take away from the central government any of its legitimate powers. On the other hand, decentralization in itself is not by any means a bad thing, on the contrary.
By the way, may I say very frankly and very openly at this stage of my remarks that I am in favour of a united Canada, that I have confidence and hope in the future of confederation. And, in my capacity as the authorized spokesman for the Quebec caucus of our party, I add that like the provincial leader of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), we on this side of the house do not consider that we have been given a mandate to take away from the present federal power its legitimate rights.
If we acted any differently, we would not then truly understand where our duty lies. Still, I must say we are aware that, if confederation is to continue and progress, if it is to rally the support of the majority in Canada and more especially in the province of Quebec we must face present realities, and especially that which implies recognition of the French fact, of the legitimate aspirations of the French group as an essential partner in confederation. As such, we must endorse and support as much as possible, and with all the constitutional means of which we can avail ourselves, the autonomist attitude adopted by almost all the governments of the province of Quebec, whether Liberal, Conservative, Union Nationale or other.
Mr. Chairman, were it not for such an autonomist attitude, confederation could not survive. This is not a Quebec problem only; it is a national problem, because Canada is not only composed of two main ethnic groups coming from two founding races, it comprises also many other ethnic groups. There is, in this vast geographical territory called Canada, many different economic and geographical areas which, in order to survive, must have powers which, within their jurisdiction, are completely autonomist, independent and free from any interference by the central power.
Mr. Chairman, there is another argument to support the claims of the partisans of provincial autonomy:	the transformation
within confederation and throughout the country in the last few years, especially since the last world war.
Everyone knows that under cover of the war and of the economic needs resulting therefrom, the central government monopolized as never before nearly all the powers
Interim Supply
and the economic sinews in the country. On the other hand, since the war the wind of decentralization started blowing and the provinces, having under the constitution sovereign powers in their own field, acquired responsibilities which they never had before and were faced with all sorts of needs. Now, to carry out their responsibilities in these fields, the provinces had to have fiscal means which, largely under cover of the war and also for other but less obvious reasons, were monopolized by the central power; the provinces have been claiming these fiscal resources since the end of the war. I am thinking, for instance, about their responsibility in the fields of public education, communications within the provinces, municipal services, social welfare and particularly about the development of national resources of all provinces. Those are concrete tasks, tremendous responsibilities the provinces must assume and that is why there was a whole series of federal-provincial conferences during which all premiers spoke with one voice in order to give back to the appropriate jurisdiction the means to legitimately carry out the obligations incumbent to them under the constitution. And I think that such a trend will certainly continue.
There was much more. Since the end of the war-it is proper to say so-there has been a new awakening in the province of Quebec, and especially among French Canadians. Quebec is now conscious of its power and of its human as well as material resources. I think it is accurate to say that the great majority of its population, having such resources, want to use them for legitimate purposes and to promote its development in all fields, so that it can be strong, more powerful and more united to share in this great Canadian achievement.
I think that such is the true voice and desire of the moderate elements in the province of Quebec. I leave out of consideration all those who, because of past disappointments, have lost their illusions, and no longer believe in the possibility of the existence of a confederation where their rights would be fully recognized.
Mr. Chairman, I think that while desiring national unity, we must demand from our government leaders, from all those who have responsibilities, to pursue a genuine Canadian policy and I cannot see the pursuit of such a policy without the implementation of a great many reforms, the need of which is getting more pressing day by day.
I am thinking in particular of the necessity for our country to approve a truly distinctive

Interim Supply
flag. I am for this distinctive flag, Mr. Chairman. I, for one, am quite satisfied that a committee looked into this matter for nearly two months and held a great many meetings at the end of which it finally made its choice. I recognize that this choice has been freely accepted by the majority of the members on this committee, and I feel that to delay the approval of the committee's report, at this stage, would certainly not help the cause of national unity.
I also believe that legislation concerning the repatriation of the constitution should be passed quickly. I have examined the two formulae:	the one brought forth in 1961
and the 1964 version. I am unable to see any essential difference between the two, or at least, no difference in respect of the federal government powers. Even if this formula is examined carefully with a magnifying glass, nowhere will there be found a lessening of federal powers. Therefore, it seems that when one is speaking of a plot, in this repatriation formula, in order to get rid of certain powers of the federal government, this assertion cannot be proved by the text that was submitted.
Certainly, there are differences. Sections 6, 7, 8, and part 3 of the press release or legislative project are different from the Fulton formula of 1961. But nowhere is there any lessening of the powers of the central government, except in section 6 which contains a definition of what constitutes federal jurisdiction, and also certain powers under which the federal government could not unilaterally make any amendment.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is advisable to adopt quickly and without acrimony the necessary address in order to bring home the constitution in accord with the wishes of most Canadians and of the British authorities themselves.
I also believe that once we have brought home the constitution, we should also think of revising and modernizing it. It is not difficult to realize that the British North America Act and some other statutes that are part of our constitution are antiquated, rigid, and do not meet the realities of today.
It is only normal that after 100 years there should be this anxiety to modernize an instrument which certainly served us well in the past but is no longer adequate in the light of today's needs. And when I say today's needs, I do not mean only the legitimate claims and aspirations of only a section of the population, namely the French Canadian people, but I mean also all social, economic and cultural problems which are not men-

tioned in the constitution and for which a solution does not seem to be provided.
In my opinion, those are facts about which we, the members of the Canadian parliament, must think seriously.
We live in a changing world, and Mr. Chairman, the very basis of the British genius is to accept changes when they become necessary. Where would the British commonwealth of nations be today if the British genius had not changed with the times, accepted changes, and created a large association of free nations which are an important factor in the peace and prosperity of the world?
Mr. Chairman, the world we live in is an independent world, and it is certain that no matter under which system we live we will still be subject to that interdependence between all the nations of the world and will have to accept it.
In my opinion, to refuse changes when their necessity has become absolutely obvious and clear is to show a lack of flexibility, a lack of political realism.
One of the greatest virtues which made the western civilization great is tolerance, and I believe that we, the members of parliament, while considering today and in the following days our very future, will have to show much tolerance. If we consider the problems I mentioned in that spirit we will find a solution and Canada will become a greater nation.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I was not able to be in the house last week but I have been checking the Hansard record to see what subjects were under discussion at that time. I was interested to discover that most of the complaints which were presented in the committee with respect to government action, or lack of action, related to a problem that I was exposed to directly last week during my absence from the house. It was my privilege to attend the opening of parliament in another commonwealth country, the island of Bermuda. I was interested to note the different functions of parliament as they exist here compared with those in a parliamentary body which has not yet completed the transition from representative parliamentary democracy to responsible parliamentary democracy.
It was also interesting to note that the Bermuda parliament had some of the problems with which we are faced in this country. As a matter of fact the newly formed oppo-

sition in that country decided to demonstrate its protest against the policies of the administration by boycotting the opening ceremonies of parliament. As I have been listening to the groans and moans emanating from the government benches this afternoon as opposition members have risen to their feet to take part in this important discussion on interim supply I have come to the conclusion that some of my hon. friends across the way might hope that the opposition in the Canadian House of Commons would demonstrate its protest by being absent from the sittings of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Most of them are right now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that most of them are absent at the moment from the sittings of parliament. I am always surprised when a member of his broad experience in parliament makes a comment of that kind, because he has been in the house long enough to know that members of parliament have other responsibilities than those which bring them to the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, that line.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I know my hon. friend is always aware that this will get him a headline and I suppose that is why he makes these frequent interjections into our parliamentary discussions here.
Before I was interrupted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I was pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that judging from the reaction of members opposite they might wish that the members of the opposition would discharge their responsibilities by being absent from this chamber. It seems to me that that would demonstrate the attitude I saw in the Bermuda parliament, which has not yet completed the transition from representative democracy to responsible democracy.
In this regard I should like to make some comments on the discussion which took place last week on the subject of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


An hon. Member:: Again?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, hon. members keep interjecting from across the way. Unfortunately I cannot hear their mumblings so therefore am unable to reply. However, I make this comment just in case the Hansard reporter has been able to catch their mumblings, instead of their rising to their feet and discussing intelligently these important subjects.
Interim Supply
I think that by failing to recognize that we do have responsible democracy in Canada the government brings trouble upon its own head. As I read the discussion which took place about the C.B.C., member after member made the point that it would be in the best interests of our parliamentary process if the subject of the C.B.C. were brought before a parliamentary committee. This house of course is the highest court of public opinion in the land. Whenever the government is questioned on the functions of the
C.B.C. it always replies that that important public corporation is responsible to the parliament of Canada. If that is so, Mr. Chairman, how can parliament discharge its responsibility better than by having an opportunity to hear from representatives of the C.B.C. before a parliamentary committee? In addition, we as members would have an opportunity to make comments and suggestions to the officials of the corporation in the process of discussion in a parliamentary committee.
This was the practice when I first came into parliament back in the early 1950's. There was a parliamentary committee on broadcasting almost every second year and it led to some of the useful reforms brought about in this house in 1958. But this government, in its stubborn refusal to refer such a difficult and complex subject to a parliamentary committee on broadcasting, brings trouble down upon its own head. This seems to be typical of the actions of the present government in handling the affairs of the nation, and certainly in handling the affairs of parliament: its failure to present business in an orderly fashion, and its introducing divisive subjects in an arbitrary manner.
In this connection I make merely a passing reference to the flag, which has so disrupted and confused the deliberations of this body during the current session of parliament. They knew by introducing a divisive subject of this kind that this would be the inevitable result. In its failure to allow representatives from the C.B.C. to come before a parliamentary committee the government is creating difficulty as well for that body.
There is bound to be criticism of a crown corporation charged with the responsibility of carrying on a comprehensive national broadcasting service. Questions are being asked on orders of the day, cluttering up the preliminary procedures of this house. It is inevitable that on a motion for interim supply, which provides an opportunity for discussing these matters, we have an extended

Interim Supply
debate on the subject. The parliamentary committee system has been extolled as a time saving device by parliamentary reformers from all sides of this house. Yet the government has resorted to a cover-up procedure by appointing an advisory committee which will in due course report to parliament, and in this arbitrary way has by-passed the basic principle of parliament and the responsibilities of the elected representatives.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


George James McIlraith: When the hon. member mentions the C.B.C. and the reference to the advisory committee, does he not think it would be fair to comment on what was said about a parliamentary committee at the time of the announcement? He will recall that at that point there was reference made to a parliamentary committee, and that reference can be found in Hansard.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The point I am making is that instead of setting up a parliamentary committee the government has decided to set up an advisory committee which will in due course report to parliament. If we are going to adhere to the principles of responsible democracy, it is essential that the elected representatives of the people have an opportunity of reviewing from time to time the functions of this Important body.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member understood my point. In the announcement regarding the advisory committee there was a commitment made, as I recall it, that a parliamentary committee would be set up to study the recommendations of that advisory committee.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is precisely what I am saying. The government is introducing an intermediary body. In other words the government is setting up another court of public opinion in this country to give consideration to the problems of broadcasting, and is stating that that secondary court of public opinion must report before the primary court of public opinion can take action. No democratic country can afford more than one high court of public opinion. This is our complaint and protest.
If the government had even a simple knowledge and understanding of the functions of the C.B.C. it should have been able to avoid this error. If the government had an understanding of responsible parliamentary democracy it would be aware that in order to

satisfy the interests of the members of parliament in the functions of this tremendously powerful public opinion and educational service, it would have to make it possible for direct contact between the members of parliament and the officials of this organization. That has been the practice in the past but, as I have already intimated, but for some inexplicable reason, the present government has not resorted to the established practice.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member has made reference to an action taken by the government as announced on May 25, 1964, and which appears at page 3520 of Hansard. However, in referring to that announcement he has omitted to refer to a statement therein about a parliamentary committee and a time limit within which it would be set up. I am asking him whether he thinks that is a fair way of presenting his case.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, the point I am making is that an advisory committee is to be set up.


George James McIlraith: A parliamentary committee is to be set up also.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A parliamentary committee is to be set up following the recommendations of the advisory committee. The reason I have difficulty in understanding the government's devious device in this regard is because the government itself reiterates that the C.B.C. is not responsible to the government, but is responsible to parliament. What better way could it demonstrate that responsibility than by giving members of parliament an opportunity from time to time of making its wishes, comments and criticisms known with respect to the operations of this huge public corporation?
Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests that I am ignoring a statement which appears in Hansard. I am not ignoring that statement, but I am criticizing the government because a parliamentary committee is going to be bypassed in the first instance by an advisory committee which has no responsibility, or a lower level of responsibility, to the elected representatives in the House of Commons.
Various commentators have pointed out that it is unfair for members of parliament constantly to raise questions on orders of the day concerning the operations of the C.B.C. This is the only possible opportunity hon. members have to ask these questions, if the procedure which used to be followed, having the affairs of the C.B.C. submitted for review by a parliamentary committee on a regular basis, is not to be followed. Cer-

tainly discussions about an item of expenditure of some $100 million is in order during the debate on interim supply because, by the very actions of the government, we have a prime example of taxation without representation.
The government for some reason has tried to make a sacrosanct organization of the C.B.C. by removing it from the arena of public discussion. As I have already indicated, this is not only embarrassing to the government but is a source of embarrassment to the C.B.C. I think we should consider again the fundamental points which the C.B.C. reiterates in the midst of the current and continuing controversy. The C.B.C. admits that the air waves do not belong to any corporation, either private or public, but that they are a trust to be administered in the interests of the people. The air waves belong to the people. The officials of the C.B.C. also indicate that they are charged with the responsibility of carrying out broad national objectives. In this parliament we have the representatives of the people. This is the court of opinion where these broad national objectives are debated, and where we are trying to achieve a national consensus.
If we consider the early organizational period of the C.B.C. we will find that it was patterned after the British Broadcasting Corporation. The policies and techniques that had already been developed in the B.B.C. were adhered to very closely in the initial setting up of the C.B.C., and it has been pointed out over and over again in the house that the British parliament discharges its responsibility through regular referral of B.B.C. matters to a parliamentary committee at Westminster.
What are some of the main broad national objectives which make it important for parliament to have an opportunity to make its wishes known to the officials of the C.B.C.? First of all, Canadianization is the major function and role of the C.B.C. as defined in the Broadcasting Act, to encourage the development of Canadian talent, and to counter the influence of the powerful broadcasting media south of the border. We should have an opportunity to see how the C.B.C. is discharging this most important of all functions. Second, there is the question of national unity and the efforts of the C.B.C. to assist in the achieving of national unity. If we are to learn any lesson from the discussions that have been going on in the house and throughout the country in recent months, I think we will readily come to the coninterim Supply
elusion there is something wrong with the national consensus and national unity in the Canadian body politic at the present time. Therefore it would be most advisable for members of parliament to have an opportunity to see just how the C.B.C. is assisting the cause of national unity at this time through its radio and television facilities.
I have heard comments outside the house by responsible ministers of the Quebec government, for example, to the effect that the programming of the C.B.C. in recent months has tended to have a detrimental effect, rather than encouraging national unity. I refer in particular to the statement of Hon. Bona Arsenault just the other day when speaking on this subject. Mr. Arsenault is no stranger to the House of Commons. He sat in the house for many years. In his remarks the other day he was not speaking from a provincial or regional point of reference but as one who was a federal member of parliament for many years and who, if I recall correctly, took a special interest in the operations of the C.B.C. through the parliamentary committee that used to meet.
Then of course there is recurring criticism by members representing various parts of the country that there is a tendency for the national broadcasting system to have a regional bias. When we think of the development of Canadian talent we find that most of such talent is developed in the more populous areas of Canada and we sometimes hear protests raised from the less populous regions of Canada, the maritimes or the western part of the country, that the same opportunities for program origination and cultural development are not provided in the non-metropolitan areas and regions. This of course is because the large metropolitan communities tend to dominate the national life of Canada as they dominate the life of any nation.
I should like to refer to a third important function which is often cited as basic to the operations of the C.B.C. I have in mind the educational and cultural function. It is recognized that a broadcasting organization with the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation bears very important responsibility for educational and cultural development. This is reflected in the $100 million annually which is made available for its operations by the parliament of Canada.
It must also be recalled that when the C.B.C. was first organized as a federally operated institution Ottawa was very sensitive about invading the field of educational responsibility because of the jurisdictional prob-

Interim Supply
lem with which we are all too familiar and which has been a part of the discussion today on the subject of dominion-provincial relations. But back in the 1930's the government at Ottawa moved into the broadcasting field because it felt this was a most important medium for cementing Canada together and developing a sense of national unity largely through educational and cultural programming.
We in this parliament have moved quite a distance from our attitude toward educational priorities in those days. I need only refer to the grants to Canadian universities, to the amount of over $400 million that has been poured into the development of the excellent system of technical and vocational schools now available to the young people of Canada. Yet even though parliament has expanded its educational activities in other fields the fiscal demands of the C.B.C. continue to mount in an almost astronomical way. University leaders of Canada constantly remind parliament that they are being hard pressed to meet the challenge of education in the modern world because of the tremendous influx of the post-war generation of Canadians, the population explosion resulting from the war baby generation now reaching university age. It is high time that parliament gave some consideration to priorities in regard to assistance in meeting the educational problems of the nation. We grant $100 million to the C.B.C. I do not know what the figure is for federal grants to universities but obviously it has not increased in equal proportion.
As I have intimated, it was the practice to have the broadcasting committees up until the change of government in 1963. The Conservative government established a parliamentary committee to deal with broadcasting matters and the preceding Liberal government set up several parliamentary committees for this purpose. Arising out of the deliberations of the parliamentary committee in 1957 and 1958 there came very important policy recommendations which resulted in changes in broadcasting procedures that had a beneficial effect in regard to the functions of broadcasting in this nation. The B.B.G., for example, was established and it is high time an opportunity was given for an examination of that body such as is made possible through the device of a parliamentary committee. We must remember also that there has been a continuing shift from radio to television. I do not have the relative expenditures at my fingertips, but I would imagine that a large

part of the $100 million made available for the C.B.C. is designated for the telecasting function rather than the radio function.
I neglected to mention in the earlier assessment of the functions of public broadcasting in Canada that it was always emphasized that it was desirous to have adequate broadcasting services without resort to commercialization. I think we are all aware that more and more, in both the telecasting and radio fields, the C.B.C. is resorting to revenues from advertising in order to assist in financing. Here is another aspect that could be examined by a suitable parliamentary committee.
Then, we now have alternative broadcasting services available. The private stations, both radio and television, have broadened their services to the Canadian public within recent years. During the past hearings of the parliamentary committee, it has been possible for members of parliament to hear representations from the representatives of the private broadcasters. I wonder if this advisory committee the government has set up is even going to give the private broadcasters an opportunity to make their difficulties and problems known.
Then, another major item that will confront the C.B.C. and the private broadcasters, and because of parliament's function in scrutinizing the operations of the C.B.C. it will concern all members of this house, is the fact we are about to face the decision of whether or not Canada should go into the colour telecasting field. I recall that back in 1952, I believe, the parliamentary committee of that year gave attention to the question of whether or not the C.B.C. should go into the telecasting field. As a result of the discussion in the committee, the C.B.C. was able to come to a decision that was in tune with prevailing public opinion of the day. I can recall, too, we even had a discussion in that committee of whether or not it was desirable to have an FM broadcasting network that would supplement the AM broadcasting facilities at that time. Well, the recommendation came strongly from the parliamentary committee that the C.B.C. should move into FM broadcasting, and as a direct result of the deliberations of that committee the Canadian Broadcasting facilities were considerably improved.
During this debate I do not want to go into the question of programming on the C.B.C.


Lucien Lamoureux: I have to interrupt the hon. member to inform him that his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; I will not trespass for very many minutes on the patience of the committee because, as I have intimated already, I do not want to discuss, either in a positive or negative way, the programming of the C.B.C. I do not believe that this committee of the whole is the place in which this subject can be dealt with adequately. It is easy to criticize a particular program, as happens from time to time in this house. Then we hear the minister, speaking from his exalted level of non-partisanism and non-political interference, say that he would be very happy to bring the comments of the hon. members to the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. How much more useful and effective it would be if hon. members could sit across the table and make their comments about these programs and get answers directly from the C.B.C. officials. I am sure the C.B.C. officials would be pleased to explain the motivation behind some of these programs that give rise to discussion and comment not only in this house but in many parts of Canada.
It is not only a public information media such as the C.B.C. that comes under criticism. The press is always under criticism. Of course, we have more direct access to the press through the printed page, and the press is also a private information service. Unfortunately the C.B.C., as a public information body, has to consider the delicate relationships between politicians and the corporation. This makes it a very much more sensitive and difficult area in which to operate. It is not only the press that is criticized. I can recall year after year in this house discussions going forward about the problem of salacious and indecent literature, in much the same terms as the pornography on the C.B.C. comes under discussion here. It was the former member for Kamloops who kept this subject alive over a number of years in such a way that finally this parliament was persuaded to take some legislative action. I am certainly not at all in favour of censorship, but I am absolutely in favour of an expression of public opinion from this responsible parliamentary body that can make the wishes of the people of Canada known to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I have one final word on this subject, and that is to underscore the importance of a mass media of communication in the world in which we live. We know that the printed word and the earlier means of communication
Interim Supply
have had an important role to play in shaping the destinies not only of nations but of whole civilizations. I remember, for example, that well known economist, Dr. Innes, at the University of Toronto, giving a series of lectures on the subject of civilization and communication. His thesis was simply this, that the values of the civilization achieved by man in any particular period of time are strongly determined by the means of communication which are available.
He went back to the days of the Egyptian civilization, pointing out that the great leap forward was made possible by the invention of even a simple improvement in communications such as papyrus as opposed to the cuneiform writing which had been the only means of written communication up to that time. But how much more important is this thesis in the kind of world in which we live today, which has mass media able to engage in all sorts of subtle propaganda which can brainwash people without their even knowing they are being brainwashed. I refer to the hidden persuasion which is made possible by the subliminal advertising available in television, whereby one can flash a message on a screen, a message the viewer is not even aware of but which seeps into his subconscious and thus determines his behaviour and motivation.
We hear many criticisms from responsible groups that the avante garde has taken over in certain areas of the C.B.C. and are using this important mass medium to put forward their views, views which obviously are motivating many people, if we are to judge by a generation of angry young men and women making its protests heard in many national areas. All of this has been brought home to us in a forceful manner in recent weeks.
That is all I have time to say at the moment, Mr. Chairman. We have not even begun to exhaust the comments that could be made on broadcasting. I have endeavoured to put forward a case for the referral of C.B.C. and broadcasting matters to a parliamentary committee rather than resorting to the devious device of an advisory committee, such as the government has done. This is a dereliction of duty on the part of the government, because in our form of parliamentary democracy the government and the agencies operating under its aegis must always be responsible to the elected representatives of the people.


Mr. Ormiston:: In the few minutes left before six o'clock I should like to remind the committee that when I led off the debate on

Interim Supply
interim supply on Friday, October 23, a serious problem confronted us with regard to transport. Those of us who participated in the debate were certainly gratified to note that on the following Monday certain action was taken which we hoped would make it possible for a commission to investigate the situation, but even though some work has been done, to date the situation has not been resolved.
I understand there is difficulty finding someone to head an investigative commission, and we have no guarantee on how long the railway employees will keep their contract to run and operate the trains if no positive action is taken. If, because of the inability of the government or the Minister of Transport to find someone suitable for this job, services were again disrupted, this would be most unfortunate. I sincerely hope that in the very near future a commissioner will be named to investigate the situation, and that an arrangement will be reached satisfactory to both management and the unions involved. The President of the Privy Council was good enough to say we can expect some action in this respect in the near future, but I believe such an announcement should come from the Minister of Transport who holds direct responsibility.
This evening I wish to pursue the topic discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton West. We have received some legal interpretations of the constitutional problem, but it is the layman and the public in general who will be affected by the great changes envisaged.
It is only normal that as a country develops and its provinces flex their muscles and become prosperous, they wish to expand in many ways, and in looking for the' means with which to expand undoubtedly they look toward the political aspect of a question. This is not only true of Canada but of developing nations all over the world. We have heard much about the winds of change. They do not blow just in one direction or in one country; they blow in many places. As confederation develops we must accept the necessity for change, but every care must be taken and every preparation made before changes are effected and accepted.
As I say, changes have been taking place in many parts of the world. With their experience of the parliamentary system we expect the British to be the most adult nation politically, but just a short time ago we found there are nationalists in Scotland who believe they should be given some recognition. Some of them want a form of parliament for
[Mr. Ormiston.l
their own country and they go to considerable lengths to make their views known not only to the people of Britain but to people in other parts of the world. They do not, of course, resort to the more callous means of bringing their case to the attention of the public, but it will be recalled that a few years ago, in the dark of night, they stole the stone of Scone which had been sitting in Westminster for hundreds of years, and took it back with them to Scotland. This was their way of showing that the parliamentary representation they were getting was not adequate, and though there was a great hue and cry months went by before the stone was taken back.
There has been little said about separatism since then, these people being very rational, as are all Scottish people, and deeming they had made their point. Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
["In the few minutes left before six o'clock I should like to remind the committee that when I led off the debate on", "Interim Supply\ninterim supply on Friday, October 23, a serious problem confronted us with regard to transport. Those of us who participated in the debate were certainly gratified to note that on the following Monday certain action was taken which we hoped would make it possible for a commission to investigate the situation, but even though some work has been done, to date the situation has not been resolved.\nI understand there is difficulty finding someone to head an investigative commission, and we have no guarantee on how long the railway employees will keep their contract to run and operate the trains if no positive action is taken. If, because of the inability of the government or the Minister of Transport to find someone suitable for this job, services were again disrupted, this would be most unfortunate. I sincerely hope that in the very near future a commissioner will be named to investigate the situation, and that an arrangement will be reached satisfactory to both management and the unions involved. The President of the Privy Council was good enough to say we can expect some action in this respect in the near future, but I believe such an announcement should come from the Minister of Transport who holds direct responsibility.\nThis evening I wish to pursue the topic discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton West. We have received some legal interpretations of the constitutional problem, but it is the layman and the public in general who will be affected by the great changes envisaged.\nIt is only normal that as a country develops and its provinces flex their muscles and become prosperous, they wish to expand in many ways, and in looking for the' means with which to expand undoubtedly they look toward the political aspect of a question. This is not only true of Canada but of developing nations all over the world. We have heard much about the winds of change. They do not blow just in one direction or in one country; they blow in many places. As confederation develops we must accept the necessity for change, but every care must be taken and every preparation made before changes are effected and accepted.\nAs I say, changes have been taking place in many parts of the world. With their experience of the parliamentary system we expect the British to be the most adult nation politically, but just a short time ago we found there are nationalists in Scotland who believe they should be given some recognition. Some of them want a form of parliament for\n[Mr. Ormiston.l\ntheir own country and they go to considerable lengths to make their views known not only to the people of Britain but to people in other parts of the world. They do not, of course, resort to the more callous means of bringing their case to the attention of the public, but it will be recalled that a few years ago, in the dark of night, they stole the stone of Scone which had been sitting in Westminster for hundreds of years, and took it back with them to Scotland. This was their way of showing that the parliamentary representation they were getting was not adequate, and though there was a great hue and cry months went by before the stone was taken back.\nThere has been little said about separatism since then, these people being very rational, as are all Scottish people, and deeming they had made their point. Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?\nAt six o'clock the committee took recess."]
James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Chairman, before the supper hour I was trying, with limited success, to point out that the winds of constitutional change are blowing everywhere in the world, even in the British Isles, where the Scottish nationalists used some unorthodox methods of bringing their views before the public. However, having done it in a rather polite manner, they were not ostracized, as is shown by the fact that the people of Great Britain had two Scottish prime ministers prior to the recent election. While the stone of Scone, or the stone of destiny, as I mentioned, was resident in Westminster, I am one of those who feel that we are not inconvenienced to too great an extent by the residence of the constitution in Westminster; but I did feel that the repatriation of the constitution would begin a war of attrition on that constitution.
We see this because of several situations which have taken place in the last few months. We see that the premier of British Columbia is trying to extend the boundaries of his province into the Yukon and Northwest Territories. We see that the minister of revenue in the province of Quebec has said there are several departments in which there is too much overlapping and that as far as the federal field is concerned they could be done away with. We see the premier of Saskatchewan, after attending the meeting of the federal and provincial representatives,

certainly taking exception to the ideas which were voiced at that meeting. The premier of Saskatchewan was so incensed, evidently, by what took place that he felt that any change in the constitution, if Quebec was affected, would require the province of Saskatchewan to join up with the United States.
This of course is a most unusual approach. Those of us who know something of the economy of Saskatchewan and of the great potential there realize that in the years ahead the economic power of Saskatchewan will probably equal that of the province of Quebec. There are those tremendous deposits of potash which underlie so much of the area of Saskatchewan. The great potential in the province of Saskatchewan is not equalled anywhere else in Canada. Those minerals in the province which will be transported in ever increasing quantity to the underdeveloped and undernourished countries of the world will create an economy for Saskatchewan which will not be equalled. That is why I am wondering why the premier of a province such as Saskatchewan feels so concerned that after a federal-provincial conference he says that if certain other situations are prevalent Saskatchewan will also have to take some steps to dissociate itself from confederation. I am wondering just what did transpire in so far as the change in the constitution was concerned.
There are many people in all parts of Canada who have that same view, and I think it is only pertinent that we should at this time make some inquiry into and expect some explanations as to what the analysis of this whole situation can be. I am particularly concerned because I have heard in other quarters of people in public life who are concerned, and really concerned, about the attitude that was prevalent at that meeting.
One of those individuals is a constitutional lawyer of some note; in fact he is the former lieutenant governor of the province of Saskatchewan, Hon. Frank Bastedo. For the benefit of the committee I should like to put on Hansard tonight some of his opinions in this regard, because Hon. Frank Bastedo is recognized in most quarters as an eminent lawyer and one quite well fitted to analyse the situation as it prevails today. Mr. Bastedo was one of those who was a witness when the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism held its meetings in the city of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Bastedo was very concerned and some of his remarks illustrate his concern to some extent. He told those who were present that
Interim Supply
the terms of reference of the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism was in effect the first draft of a new constitution for Canada. This is a very strong statement, Mr. Chairman, but he felt this was a constitution that would divide us into an alliance of regions, a partnership of what he called two preferred "founding races" with a silent partnership for those of us who are what he called the "foundling" races.
In the British North America Act there is no talk of races and there is no talk of Quebec or Ontario agreeing to enter into confederation either. The preamble to the British North America Act begins:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion-
Section 3 provides for the formation of the provinces of Canada, of Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into one dominion. Then section 5 declares-and hear this carefully:
Canada-
That is, the new dominion:
-shall be divided into four provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.
In other words, with the exception of those two provinces which temporarily stayed out of the union in 1867, all of British North America was lumped together to form one nation and then, for the purposes of local government only, it was divided up again. The province of Canada was divided into the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. These provinces were born, as was our nation of Canada, with the British North America Act. One third of the act sets up constitutions for these provinces. Reading the plain English of the B.N.A. Act-as we must, because there is no official French language text, not even of that part which is the constitution of the province of Quebec-how can there then be talk of an alliance of two founding races, of the parts being greater than the whole?
The Fathers of Confederation deliberately conceived our constitution as a union of parts into one nation, not as an alliance of states. They knew that the United States of America had begun to fall apart within ten years of its founding as an alliance of states. They had read the words of the American statesman James Madison, who was later president, when he successfully fought for a union and repudiated an alliance of states in these words, which I will now put on Hansard:
In time, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all govern-

Interim Supply
ment; it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere surbordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.
Madison and his fellow statesmen succeeded in strengthening the bonds of union, but they were not so successful as to prevent the war between the states which was burning fiercely at the very time our Fathers of Confederation were planning our union. It was because of the experience of those Americans that Sir John A. Macdonald analysed the situation as it then was across the border and also made some pointed remarks. Having seen the situation which existed across the border he said this:
We can now take advantage of the last 78 years, during which the constitution-
He is referring to the American constitution.
-has existed, and I am strongly of the belief that we have, in a great measure, avoided in this system which we propose for the adoption of the people of Canada the defects which time and events have shown to exist in the American constitution. .. Ever since the union was formed the difficulty of what is called "state rights" has existed, and this had had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the United States... They commence, in fact, at the wrong end. They declared by their constitution that each state was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belonged to each state, except those powers which by the constitution were conferred upon the general government and congress. Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the general government... We thereby strengthen the central parliament, and make the confederation one people and one government, instead of five peoples and five governments, with merely a point of authority connecting us to a limited and insufficient extent.
This is certainly a point to analyse when we realize today that to some extent we are again trying to divide the powers of our governments.
When these statesmen such as Madison, the American, and Macdonald, the Canadian, have so spoken, why does the present government revive this type of proposition-this monster government which Madison repudiated and Macdonald slew; the monster of which the head is under the direction of the members; the monster of which the parts are greater than the whole; the monster that spawns that monstrosity of wars, civil war?
There was another American who was very conscious of the division of power between the state and the federal government, and I refer to George Washington. Washington, who led the armies of the colonies in revolution, who lived under the alliance of states and

wrote that it seemed little more than a shadow without substance, who served two terms as first president of the strengthened union, knew the answer. In his farewell address to the people of the United States Washington said this-


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: We have enough problems over here without hearing about the United States.


James Norris Ormiston: This is quite relevant, if the hon. member will listen. He said:
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed; it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union, to your collective and individual happiness.. .frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts...In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union, it occurs as a matter of serious concern that any group should have been furnished for characterising parties by geographical discriminations- northern and southern-Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local Interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts...
I may say now, Mr. Chairman, that the evil which Washington foresaw as a constant and active threat to the union of the United States has come upon us in Canada. There are designing men in all parts of the country, both on the provincial and the national level, who can easily raise the cry of discrimination in one quarter and favouritism in another. I think it is evident that those of us who analyse what was said by Macdonald, Madison and Washington feel that here is a lesson which we can take to heart. They foresaw the difficulties which would ensue where the country was divided, where the federal government was weakened, where the provincial or state government became too powerful. This is a lesson which we would do well to take to heart in the days ahead when we have to examine all of the propositions which have come forward from this federal and provincial conference.


Mr. Willoughby:: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the applause which I am getting from the other side of the house. I hope I will be worthy of the courtesy hon. members opposite are showing and that they will continue to be courteous during the few remarks I have to make. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the remarks which I have will be brief and they will be based on criticisms which I hope are justifiable. I feel they are. But in addition to being criticisms I hope they will also be criticisms of a constructive nature. It is not criticism, Mr. Chairman, of the intent; it is the criticism which I have in my mind of the methods being used in this house.
I feel I am wholly correct when I say that at the present time parliament is in disrepute. It is in disrepute not only in local circles here, but from talking to constituents and from correspondence I have received from all over Canada I feel this is the attitude of the general public toward this institution, and I think it is something which should be taken very seriously. The House of Commons cannot afford to continue in this manner.
Everything this parliament has done is not wrong, and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys upon his recent announcement regarding the choice of site for the construction of a $10 million telescope, which I believe is of national importance, This telescopic complex represents a tremendous memorial to the 1967 centennial celebration. The location of this site was decided after careful consideration and study by the scientists involved in the project, and I congratulate the minister and his government in this regard.
My criticisms are not directed toward the things brought forward by this government, but toward the manner in which it has brought them forward. Far be it from me to profess expert knowledge in many of the fields of legislation which have been and will be covered during this session, but I do feel that we should receive more expert advice regarding the problems with which we are faced. The legislation brought forward during the past 18 months has been submitted to this parliament without due study and preparation. As a result we have witnessed one blunder after another. We were promised 60 days of decision but instead we have observed 16 months of indecision.
Mr. Chairman, are we to witness further decisions of the same type which will not stand up to scrutiny and criticism? Is the government creating more problems? Let us find
Interim Supply
the answers to these questions before it is too late. Let us take a lesson from what has happened during the last 16 months and thereby avoid making the same errors. During the present session of parliament many federal-provincial conferences have taken place. While I think the principle behind these conferences should be encouraged, I believe more have been held during this session than during any other session in history. Perhaps that is an indication of uncertainty or insecurity on the part of the government.
What is the trouble with Canada? This is a country with unlimited opportunity, and I am sure no one will deny that fact. Under present circumstances can we not be a happy family? Why are we so divided at this time? I think our problem is one of misdirection. Let us stop pussyfooting, locate the trouble and cure it. We should stop treating the provinces and each other like sick children. More candy never cured a sick child. This is an adult nation, so let us be adult in our thinking. Separatism is a word which we should banish from our vocabulary.
Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in my thinking, and as support for my argument I should like to quote the sentiments expressed very well by Mr. Westell in the Toronto Globe and Mail of October 22. Mr. Westell was writing about the situation existing in Canada today and has stated:
A whole new system of government appears to be emerging in Canada without conscious planning and with no one quite sure how it will end.
He then states:
Prime Minister Lester Pearson calls the new system co-operative federalism-a phrase which has become a cliche and thus tends to conceal rather than reveal what is happening.
The Canadian constitution provides in theory for a division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. But more and more, the two levels of authority are merging their fields of jurisdiction and making policy jointly.
The extent to which this is happening is best seen in the extraordinary rapid development of federal-provincial consultation at the ministerial, or policy-making level.
Mr. Pearson remarked in a casual aside recently that there were federal-provincial talks going on nearly every day. He was hardly exaggerating.
Until his government took office last year, formal consultations between Ottawa and the provinces were rare. The prime minister and the premiers met about once every five years to renegotiate taxsharing arrangements and there were occasional special conferences to deal with special problems, such as repatriating the constitution.
As I have said, this type of conference may be helpful and I do not think they should be discouraged, but let us be more adult in our thinking. Let us think at a higher and

Interim Supply
more important level. What did the last conferences really accomplish, and I refer to the one which has just concluded? What is the meaning of the proposed amendment to the so-called Fulton formula?
Mr. Chairman, I am not an authority on the technicalities of these things but I do know we must accept the statements of the authorities in these fields. The Minister of Justice should know what he is talking about, and I should like to quote from something he said on the C.B.C. This quotation has been referred to already here in this debate, but I think it is worth repeating. The following question was asked:
If, for example, at any given time four provinces, or indeed more than four provinces, decided to delegate important powers to the federal government in the coming year, and that the province of Quebec, for its own reasons which we all understand, decided to retain these powers, would we not arrive at a kind of associate-state status for these two ethnic groups, two nations?
The Minister of Justice in reply to that question made the following statement:
Up to a certain point, that is possible. Because in at least four important areas as, for example, property and civil rights, which is considered as almost sacred by the province of Quebec, it will be possible to have a delegation of power by seven or eight or nine provinces and thus, of course, for this end, there could be a distinction between Quebec and the other provinces, which would be at least a distinction in fact, if not in real status, because it would be the same constitution.
What does this mean? Does it mean that the provinces may expect to have jurisdiction over immigration? Does it mean they can expect to have jurisdiction over Indian flairs? Does it mean that the provinces will have jurisdiction to override the recent federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs, concluded just last week? During that conference it was suggested that the Indians should use their own judgment as to whether they should stay under federal jurisdiction or opt out and fall within provincial jurisdiction. These are things that should be left to the experts. I do not think the majority of members of the house are qualified to decide these points.


Mr. Winch:: Then why are you discussing them?


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: What am I discussing? I am trying to discuss the idea of bringing some degree of reason into the House of Commons and I hope I am being successful.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Any more questions down there?
(Mr. Willoughby.]


Harold Edward Winch: You said these matters should be left to the experts. Then why are you discussing them?


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: If you will hear me out I think you will come to the same conclusion, and after that I hope I will hear what you have to say. We have further evidence of this situation of uncertainty in our midst and I think I should quote from another article in the Winnipeg Free Press of October 15 last which has reference to the constitutional problem. It refers to the supreme court ruling some time ago with regard to the jurisdiction of the provinces and the federal government, in which these words are found:
"The powers of parliament and of the provincial legislatures are strictly limited by the British North America Act and cannot be enlarged even with the joint consent of parliament and with the legislatures. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent. None of these bodies can be vested directly or indirectly with powers which have been denied them by the British North America Act and which, therefore, are not within their constitutional jurisdiction."
That was the ruling of the court. The article goes on to say:
With this road blocked, the present government at Ottawa attempted a new approach. The idea was that affected governments should simply turn a blind eye to the court. It should be possible to get around the constitution by a cosy agreement that it was not there. This was attempted in the Eskimo case although the matter was confused by an unconvincing and shabby pretence that administration could be transferred while jurisdiction remained untouched.
We now have a third approach which has at least the merit of honesty. The constitution is to be changed to make possible what was not possible before.
The power of delegation to be conferred on parliament by the draft amendment will be restricted in two ways. It will have authority to delegate provided that at least four of the provinces have, prior to the enactment of the statute, consented to its operation. But this is followed by a rather curious alternative.
The article goes on to show how the situation becomes more and more confused. I ask this question, Mr. Chairman: Are we at the present time facing a fait accompli? Are the provinces to be given powers that may not serve the best interests of our country? Everyone agrees with the principle of bringing home the constitution. We are mature enough, I hope, to handle it. We have not been handicapped particularly by the fact that it has been in Great Britain and that we have had to apply to Great Britain for necessary amendments to the constitution. We have at least received fair play there. But our national dignity and pride have been hurt and I believe

we all agree that the constitution should be brought back to our own country.
With regard to the question of the results of these alterations to the constitution, I think this is a matter that should be left entirely to the experts and certain questions must be answered before we proceed with the legislation about to be introduced into the house. As soon as it can possibly be done I believe the house should refer this matter to a committee for study. The finest experts in Canada should be brought before the committee to assure us that the constitutional amendments are in the best interests of everyone in this country, every province and the federal government.
I hope we will not let this matter go until it gets into the position where the Supreme Court of Canada has to hand down rulings with regard to whether the constitution is really valid. Now is the time for us to place this matter before a committee. We should not wait until the legislation is brought before the house because it will then be tossed around from party to party and from man to man. People like myself are not in any position to judge, and in my opinion we now have the opportunity to get away from the situation that arises when legislation is brought in, and then has to be taken out of the house and brought back in again in modified form before it is finally accepted. I think this is our opportunity to see that this most important piece of legislation is placed in the hands of a committee, where the finest experts in the country will be able to pass judgment on it. In my view this is in the interests of Canada's future, because I feel that the House of Commons must make provision for a most careful investigation.
This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Chairman. Our future depends on seeing to it that the alterations made are fair and safe. I say that now is the time to stop, look and listen and to see just what this legislation really means. Does the proposed transfer of powers really alter national control? Is the constitution in danger of being relegated to political expediency? These are things we want to find out. These are things we must know. Will parliament have the courage to refuse amendments when requested by certain provinces or will these matters have to be referred to the supreme court to find out whether or not the provinces are within their constitutional rights?
What does all this add up to? I would say it adds up to the fact that we should take steps immediately to bring about something
Interim Supply
that we know will be in the best interests of our country, something that will stand up to the criticism that is bound to come before these amendments to our constitution can be made. Let us have a committee study the matter as soon as it can possibly be arranged. If this is done I believe we will probably find that many of the criticisms we are hearing in regard to this matter may not be justified. I think we will probably find that what we are afraid of can be clarified without difficulty. In my opinion the original Fulton formula with these alterations will probably stand up in the House of Commons and we will find that it is satisfactory to all Canadians. If this course is followed I believe we can get the legislation through much more quickly, save a lot of the time of parliament and of the government and get ahead with what is best for our country.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, in today's debate considerable discussion has taken place regarding the constitution of Canada, commonly known as the British North America Act, and methods of repatriating and amending it. I want to take the opportunity for a few moments to discuss these points because in my province, indeed in the constituency I have the honour to represent, for the whole of this year we have as a community been celebrating the centennial of the first meeting of the Fathers of Confederation which took place in Charlottetown commencing on September 1, 1864. We in the maritime provinces are happy to celebrate the centennial of this occasion because we felt and still feel that the fondest dreams of the Fathers of Confederation who met in Charlottetown 100 years ago are within our grasp and that many of them indeed have already been achieved. After all, they met 100 years ago to weld together into a nation a few scattered colonies in what was then known as British North America. We can be proud of the success they achieved because if we consider the nations of the world as they existed at that time and especially the governments that dominated the face of Europe, we realize that most of them have changed their shape or have gone out of existence entirely during those one hundred years. Our dominion has survived and grown, and there is much of which Canadians can be proud in the achievements of the last 100 years.
The delegation that met originally in Charlottetown met for the purpose of considering the union of the maritime provinces

Interim Supply
oi Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. However, they knew that their lieutenant governors had previously been asked by Lord Monck, who was then the governor general of the province of Canada, in a letter written earlier, if the province of Canada could send a delegation of observers to this conference. Those eight delegates arrived from what was then Canada, and their discussions were given priority in the Charlottetown meeting-that is, the discussion of the larger concept of the union of all the colonies of British North America. This was discussed for several days. There was agreement in principle as to the type of union that would be suitable. It was agreed that it should be a confederation, a federal state.
After these discussions had concluded, the conference that had met originally for the purpose of discussing maritime union, then turned to the first item on their agenda. In the light of the progress made in consideration of the wider suggestion, it was decided to postpone indefinitely any thought of union of the maritime provinces. Instead, the delegates from these three maritime provinces, plus the augmented delegation from Canada and two representatives of Newfoundland, met a little later at Quebec city and passed the Quebec resolutions, which became what we know as the British North America Act.
I believe, in retrospect, that the Fathers of Confederation made two unfortunate omissions from the things they agreed upon. In my judgment, one was that they neglected to devise a means of bringing the constitution to Canada, a repatriation of the British North America Act.


Mr. Lloyd:: May I raise a point of order?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Halifax wishes to raise a point of order?


John Edward Lloyd: Earlier today in this debate on interim supply, Mr. Chairman, you cautioned the hon. member for Villeneuve to be mindful of the matter before the committee. You reminded him of the need to be relevant in the observations he was making. I suggest to you that the same general observations should apply to the speaker who is now addressing the committee.


John Angus MacLean: I want to thank my good friend, the hon. member for Halifax, for bringing this to my attention, because if he follows my remarks he will find that shortly I will be relating what I said to the item before us, which is interim supply.


An hon. Member:: This is 1964, not 1867.


John Angus MacLean: That is right; we are a country which came into being because of what took place in 1867, and in order to understand what we are I think it is only reasonable that we should review briefly what happened before.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. This afternoon you called me to order two or three times because my remarks did not bear directly upon the $740 million interim supply now before us.
Now, then, is the member who now has the floor speaking on the expenditures or the supply under study? He is speaking of 1867, while we are in the year 1964. If you remind him that we are now in 1964, I will agree with his remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is certainly a good
point that has been raised by the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for Villeneuve. From time to time during this debate the Chair has reminded hon. members who have participated in the debate that we have a specific resolution before us. The rules of the committee are that discussion in committee should be strictly relevant to the question at issue. What we are considering now is interim supply. Certainly hon. members cannot continue discussing theoretical questions. They have to relate their remarks specifically to government business. I assumed that the comments which have been made to this point by the member for Queens were perhaps laying a foundation for a future specific reference to the resolution before us. I would ask him to keep that in mind.


Mr. Byrne:: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that unless Sir John A. Macdonald left some unpaid bills in Charlottetown 100 years ago, these remarks could not possibly be relevant.


John Angus MacLean: You are quite right, Mr. Chairman. I was saying, when I was interrupted, that I felt two areas in our constitution, as it now stands, have been of great concern to this session of parliament. We would not be in the state of disarray in which we are as a nation if these omissions had not been made. The first is, as I said, that no provision was made for bringing the constitution back to Canada. This is one of the things that is immediately concerning us. The second omission was the lack of a provision for national symbols in our constitu-

tion, so that changes therein could be made in a constitutional way.
In 1962, the ten provincial governments of Canada and the federal government, decided to create a memorial, which is still not paid for in its entirety, to these Fathers of Confederation. We should look for a minute, I think, at what the objectives of the day were as they apply to the present situation. I should like to quote briefly from one of the Fathers of Confederation:
What we desire and wish is to defend the general interests of a great country and a powerful nation, by means of a central power.
This is a quotation from Hector Langevin. Then, I should like to quote from George Etienne Cartier:
Shall we be content to maintain a mere provincial existence, when, by combining together, we could become a great nation?
As I have said previously, provision was made two years ago for this fine national memorial to the Fathers of Confederation, which happens to be located in my constituency as that is where they first met. At that meeting, and in subsequent meetings they laid down what should be the jurisdiction on the one hand of the federal government and on the other of the provincial governments. Now, before the memorial is completed, we find ourselves with a government which has the rather fatuous theory that you can have your cake and eat it, that every part can have its own way completely, independent of the whole.
We have a government that tries to create the impression that each province can go its own separate way and enjoy the narrow benefits which accrue from that course while at the same time enjoying all the benefits of unity. That these two things are possible is a fallacious theory. The two points are mutually exclusive. We need a fairly strong central government.
The repatriation of the British North America Act is something which has been desired by Canadians for many years. It is not a fact that our constitution has to be amended in Westminster because of a desire by the British government to hang on to some vestige of colonial power. Far from it; Britain would have been pleased to be rid of this anachronism years ago. The reason it was not repatriated was because the various segments which make up our great country did not always feel in concert that their interests would be safeguarded if a change were made, or at least they could not arrive
Interim Supply
at a formula which would guarantee them their own interests.
I for one welcome the repatriation of the British North America Act, but I would point out that at the recent federal-provincial conference other matters were introduced, and in the proposal we find not only the question of bringing the constitution to Canada but also the question of amendments which would provide a sort of floating jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial governments. Changes in jurisdiction may be made without further amendment to the act, provided four provincial governments act in concert, and if they did I am sure they would not be resisted by a federal government as weak as this one, even though their action was not in the national interest. This concerns me deeply. For more than one reason we must have a strong federal government.
D.	G. Creighton, the well known Canadian historian, speaking of the British North America Act and of the feelings of the Fathers of Confederation said:
They had no desire whatever to break with Great Britain or to make any radical change in their own system of government. They firmly believed that constitutional monarchy, parliamentary institutions, and responsible government on the British model provided the best and freest political system in the world. All they had to do at Quebec was to recast these institutions in a federal form, but without giving too much power to the provinces and thus weakening the federation. They were convinced that it was "States' Rights" that had led to the American civil war. They must avoid the mistake of the Americans and make confederation a strong union with a predominant central government.
The federal government should also be strong in the area of its financial resources. When a number of colonies unite, the union is bound to be more beneficial to some than to others, and although on the whole it is beneficial to everyone the benefits that accrue to some will not be as great as accrue to others. Therefore there has to be a central government that can even things out a bit, and by subsidy guarantee a minimum standard of services in various things that are the responsibility of the provinces, so that a minimum is established which is the right of all people in the nation, in this case all the citizens of Canada, whether they live in Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. or anywhere else. In my view it is essential that the financial resources of the central government be fairly strong, not only to fulfil the responsibilities which fall to it under the

Interim Supply
constitution, but also to provide this evening-out effect between the provinces that make up the nation.
I am greatly concerned with the proposal which emanated from the recent federal-provincial conference in that any consortium of four provinces can set upon the federal government and piecemeal take away part of its powers, this without any reference to the legislatures of the provinces which are not in accord with the procedure. These other provinces would have no voice in what was taking place except through their members of parliament in the House of Commons.
I have a question in my mind with regard to residual powers. As hon. members will remember, 35 years ago when the case of broadcasting came up this matter had not been contemplated by an earlier age, and the question arose as to whose jurisdiction applied. Such a thing will occur in the future and I wonder whether jurisdiction will automatically lie with the central government in the first instance.
It is unfortunate that during the last two years there has been an accentuation of discord and disharmony in this country, which was conceived with such great prospects for the future. As a nation we find ourselves disenchanted with our government. We find ourselves dismayed by some of its tactics. We find ourselves disconcerted with the lack of progress parliament is making because of the manner in which matters are placed before it. We have a great responsibility and it behooves us all to realize that at best we are only very temporary custodians of the nation's interests.
That being the case, our greatest responsibility is to improve the potential of what future generations of Canadians may inherit. We are, after all, still nation building and I think it behooves the government to raise its sights above petty, shortsighted, myopic political considerations of the moment and realize that this is a great country, deserving the services of great men. They should raise their sights and look to the future, realizing that their greatest responsibility is to future generations of Canadians.
We should remember that our actions should not be governed by the short term view of what may keep a government in power for a few weeks longer, or anything of that sort. We have the future of a nation to consider. I think I can best express what I am trying to say by quoting very briefly from John Ruskin's "Seven Lamps of Architecture", in which he says:

Therefore, when we build, let us think that we build for ever. Let it not be for present delight, nor for present use alone; let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for, and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that a time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say as they look upon the labour and wrought substance of them, "See! this our fathers did for us".
I am-I was going to say disenchanted but that is not a strong enough word, Mr. Chairman-disgusted on occasion with the attitude of this government, even in the normal life span of a government, that has been given by the Canadian people the responsibility of conducting their affairs for a short period of time. I hope that in the future this government will realize that it has not been elected to power to govern for its friends, or to govern only its friends; but its responsibility is to the whole nation and to every Canadian.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of speaking tonight in this debate, but like all other members I realize that the Conservative party apparently, intends to somewhat gag the parliament of this country. In fact, we have been discussing for ten days estimates to the amount of $740 million which are before us, and for the past eight days we have been told behind the scene, here in this house, and almost everywhere, that nothing will be passed because the Conservatives have so decided.
They have been talking about the constitution, the flag, assistance to farmers, immigration, Indian affairs, in short about everything, but the Conservatives are not at all interested in the appropriations which are before us, which are already spent and which we must pay. According to what we read in the newspapers, and according to what we can see in this house, they are interested in a general election. And yet, if a general election were held probably half the present Conservative members in this house would be defeated.
What I find strange-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: What about you?


David Réal Caouette: Never mind about me. I will be back here much faster than you will.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You hope.


David Réal Caouette: I do not hope; I am sure of it. [Translation]
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who just interrupted me knows very well that he is in much greater danger of not coming back than the member for Villeneuve. He is quite aware

of the fact. He knows perfectly well, too, that the debate now going on is nothing else but what, in the King's English, is called a filibuster on the supply motion brought forward by the government.


Mr. Rapp:: Didn't you say the same thing in 1963?


David Réal Caouette: Yes. I said it in 1962 also. And in so far as your party continues to act the way it does, I will be fighting you; don't worry about that.


Mr. MacEwan:: We are awfully scared of you.


David Réal Caouette: We on this side of the house are not interested in protecting or siding with either of the old line parties. However, I will remind the Conservatives that they were in office one year and a half ago; indeed, they were in office for six years. A moment ago I saw the former minister of agriculture preparing to rise when I stood up and you gave me the floor.
What are the Conservatives doing now? They blame the party in office in regard to agriculture, labour, public works, mines, in short, in regard to every field. They were in office for six years; why did they not act differently from the government they are now blaming? Let us be consistent and logical with ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, we often hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) repeat that he is the right hon. leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. However, let us keep in mind that not so long ago he was not the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, but the prime minister of the royal government of Canada.
The then prime minister was not very active in those days. When he was defeated by a majority vote in the House of Commons on February 4, 1963, it was through his own fault and not through that of others; everyone was asking him to take action and to present a budget, which he and his government had neglected to do for a couple of years. Today he sits on the opposition benches and he blames the government for failing to do what he neglected to do himself.
For the last eight or 10 days many matters, many questions have been discussed in this house, and no one seems to know exactly where we are heading. Some talk about immigration. A while ago, I heard a member, who has since left the chamber, talk about 20220-613
Interim Supply
immigration and Indian affairs. Are we going to leave those matters to the provinces?
Others spoke about repatriating the constitution. They do not know what repatriating the constitution means; they do not know what we should do with the constitution.
As I said a week ago, all those who are attached to the British crown should have listened to the speech made in Quebec city by Her Majesty the Queen on the Saturday of her visit because she stated at the time that it is hardly surprising that a 100 year old constitution should be outdated.
Why always depreciate Canada as it now stands or as it could be?
A while ago I heard a Conservative-they are the only ones who speak but I manage to squeeze in a few words now and then-say that the province wants to control immigration. What is wrong with that? Would it not be normal for a province to keep track of the people who move into its territory and of those who move out and, if necessary, that it object to the admission of undesirable immigrants? If that were done by a province instead of by the federal government as at present, what would be wrong with that?
This does not mean that we will chase away from the provinces immigrants coming from any country whatsoever in the world. But if any Canadian province were forced to accept as an immigrant a man like Castro from Cuba, for instance, could you blame it for objecting?
First of all there is dissension among the Conservatives, that is as clear as day; they disagree amongst themselves. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) was here a while ago, the hon. member for Nicolet-Ya-maska (Mr. Vincent) does not share his leader's views, nor has the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) shared them for a long time now, and the same goes for the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), the hon. member for Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) now occupying his seat in the house, and the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) who spoke intelligently this afternoon in favour of a Canada for Canadians, not a bound Canada, a trapped Canada, an enslaved Canada, but a Canada belonging to Canadians. That hon. member was logical when he spoke thus. He was justified in calling for the adoption of a distinctive national flag. Of course, if he only represented the southern part of his riding he would say: "Any flag but a distinctive national flag." It is because



[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
Temiscamingue is in his constituency and some people there insist-
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman-


David Réal Caouette: -that the hon. member should advocate a distinctive national flag.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I feel flattered by the remarks of the hon. member for Villeneuve, but he is mistaken when he suggests that I would speak otherwise if I represented only one part of my riding. He is not in a position to make such an allegation and I am sure that, in all his usual fairness, he will not pursue that course.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I take due note of the explanation given by my very good friend, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. However, I know his riding, I would not say better than he does but at least as well because I once was the member for that riding. I know the difference between the northern and southern parts of that riding; I used to get a beating in the southern part and get elected in the northern part; the hon. member knows that.
However, should there be an election the hon. member is certainly interested in getting elected in the northern part of his riding without offending the southern part and, therefore, he is trying to run with the hare and to hunt with the hounds. That is his business, since I have nothing to do with that riding.


An hon. Member:: A majority of one.


David Réal Caouette: Someone says that he was elected with a majority of one; it was not with the vote of the elector but the vote of the returning officer.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that I am straying far away from the subject matter of the debate at this time. The election of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue has nothing to do with the $700 million expenditures which we are now considering.
I am also willing to record in Hansard that I have much admiration for the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, that I respect him, and he knows that. We never exchanged cattish words. I would not wish tonight to start a battle which I am convinced he would lose in advance.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard all kinds of recriminations, all kinds of allegations, but what surprises me, I say it again, is seeing that the Conservatives seem to take a malicious pleasure, a pleasure that I should call sadistic, in forcing us to discuss for hours,
[Mr. Caouette.)
for days on end, a supply motion for $740 million which nobody considers important.
Their objective is obvious; to prevent the legislation from being introduced and discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of each member of the Ralliement Creditistes, which I represent, I say: "We do not object to a debate on the legislation, but we strongly object to boycotting. If this boycotting was reasonable or had a commendable objective I would probably agree with the Conservatives at this time. But under the circumstances, everybody is tired. In hallways one meets Liberals and Conservatives who are tired and disgusted by the present attitude of certain members of the Conservative party. They are the ones who say: Introduce your legislation.
No opportunity is given to introduce legislation, but it is said: Introduce that legislation.
Mr. Chairman, people cannot be fooled like that forever. The flag question was mentioned. That matter will be discussed in due time. We had a meeting of the party leaders; we will have another one and the whole matter will probably be discussed at that time.
Why do Conservative members discuss the flag question again? We can discuss it, indeed. But what can we answer the people we meet on the streets in our ridings, in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, in short, everywhere in Canada, who ask us: When will you settle this flag issue, so that we do not hear any more about it? You should settle important problems for Canada instead of wasting your time on the flag issue. That is what we hear all over Canada, not only in one province.
Then, they try, as they did last week, to pit the English against the French Canadians and make people believe that the province of Quebec wants special treatment in Canada; the Quebec people do not ask for special treatment, but for fair treatment in Canada; they want to be recognized as real Canadians entitled to the same advantages and benefits as other Canadians, and ready to face the same obligations.
That is what we ask.
Why do the Conservatives make us waste our time here? They will try in the province of Quebec-Mr. Chairman, I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) probably finds my remarks humorous; I am ready to discuss those same matters

with him any time he may choose, in his own riding in Manitoba.
Mr. Chairman, we want justice to be done. But let us stop wasting tax money paid by the Canadian people. The Conservatives are the ones wasting the tax money paid in by Canadians who sweat and labour to make an honest and honourable living in Canada.
They do not want to stop, they go on with their filibuster. As far as I am concerned, I shall not indulge in filibuster any longer. Let them go on, let them talk, they are the only ones who want to take the floor.
I took the liberty of making these few remarks to indicate exactly who are those responsible for this intrigue work, this shameless parliamentary work which does honour to no Canadian, no matter his origin.
In the province of Quebec, we want action. In the other provinces, people also want action. It is not a policy of nuisance, aimed at preventing others from acting, that will give Canadians satisfaction.
Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Conservatives and I ask them to be more honest towards the Canadian people, more honest towards the Canadian taxpayers, so that we can pass these estimates as soon as possible and go on to legislation which will at last give more security to every Canadian citizen.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you have listened with great interest to the Liberal member for Villeneuve who has just taken his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If ever we have heard a member preaching for a call, there it was.
The hon. member mentioned something about Quebec's wishes. I wonder whether he would do me the honour of recognizing that those who come from areas in other parts of Canada have just as many rights to their deep-felt traditions as do the people of Quebec. This involves a fundamental point. If we ever find in this country of minorities that a minority has its rights trampled upon, we expect every member in this House of Commons-on all sides of the house-to join in the defence of that minority. All that is happening in this parliament today is that a group of members of only one party are attempting to put before the Canadian people the fact that some feel the rights of a minority are being trampled upon.
Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on this subject, but was provoked into doing so by the remarks of the hon. member for 20220-613i
Interim Supply
Villeneuve. I came here tonight to speak about the expenditure of $740 million. Each member of parliament has the right to refuse to vote supply to a government that is not meeting the wishes of parliament.


John Edward Lloyd: On the general estimates.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is not only the right of an hon. member to do so-


An hon. Member:: Go ahead and do it; let us vote.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Batten):: Order, please. The Chair is having some difficulty hearing the hon. member.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure if I am out of order at any time the hon. member for Halifax will object. I have listened to that type of objection on previous occasions and I am sure he will do so now if he thinks I am transcending the rules.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. It is my right to object, on a point of order, and I will exercise that privilege whenever in my considered judgment the situation calls for such an objection, and I do not need the hon. member to indicate when I should object. I have only risen on a point of order twice during the present session. He and his associates have taken up the best part of 72 days to obstruct, and to insist upon what he proposes should be put to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Stand up and take a bow.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member's sensitivity speaks for itself.


Mr. Skoreyko:: That is the first speech he has made in the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The reason I feel we should not vote supply in this house at the present time is that those who sit opposite are not the successors of the Fathers of Confederation of this nation, but are the fathers of deconfederation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: One of the most pronounced feelings expressed by the people across this country is of deep disturbance. This disturbance is being covered not only by the flag issue, but by a whole series of events. We are in the middle of preparing to celebrate our centennial in honour of the Fathers of Confederation, but by the actions of this

Interim Supply
government over the last 18 months we are making a mockery of all that the Fathers of Confederation sought to achieve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Tonight I intend to use the words of the Liberal members, not only in this house but in many other places across Canada, to show the type of confusion which exists. One cannot overlook the existing rights of the people of Newfoundland, British Columbia, Quebec or Ontario, or any other province. One cannot overlook the concern of residents of Canada for what has been happening. The purpose of bringing this country together 100 years ago was to join together as one nation, to do what could not be done by six, seven or eight separate colonies.


Mr. Habel:: You cannot do that by division, as you are attempting today.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Read your paper, Joe. Look at the sports page.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I hear a voice that rasps from disuse talking about division.


Mr. Woolliams:: Isn't that terrible.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: One hundred years ago we joined together for defence, for political reasons and above all to raise our economic standards.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When I am finished the hon. member for Halifax can make his own speech.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It would be much more timely now.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Is that the junior or the senior member for Halifax?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Will the hon. member not agree-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has indicated that he does not wish to receive any questions.


Gerald Augustine Regan: He is afraid to answer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These hon. members do not want me to read what I am going to read tonight because it is the mark of division of this country that I brand them with. I said a moment ago that we are not satisfied to let these people facing us tear this country asunder. One hundred years ago we did not form a unitary government, we did not form
[Mr. Hamilton.!
a confederate government, we formed a federal state.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And with respect to those matters over which the federal government has jurisdiction every Canadian owes his loyalty to the federal government and to the federal government alone. When we hear this divisive nonsense being uttered at this time by so-called responsible ministers it makes us in the opposition wonder whether we can vote supply to such a government.
The situation confronting us is not unknown in our history. In any federal state there is always a tug-of-war between the central power and the provincial powers, because no matter how carefully you try to draft the respective jurisdictions there will always be overlapping and conflict. In our history we have seen power shift from one side to the other. We have seen a period when the provincial governments became stronger and the federal government became weaker. We have seen a period when the federal government became stronger and the powers of the provinces were reduced. One of these periods was from 1935 to 1957 and if you go back over our history you will see that there was good reason for it. In order to meet the challenge of the depression the people of Canada were quite willing for the federal government to assume extra powers to try to bring the whole strength of the nation to grapple with the very serious economic difficulties. During the war there was a tremendous expansion of the federal power and I believe all Canadians were glad to see this power assumed by the federal government so that we could prosecute the war with maximum effectiveness.
Following the war there was a period of rehabilitation, but the tendency to centralize did not stop with the end of the rehabilitation period. It continued, and there is no doubt that in the latter years of the Liberal government which was in power from 1935 to 1957 the Conservative party began to object to this centralization on the ground that it was not so necessary, and on the ground that it was being pushed beyond the point of good sense.
When the government changed in 1957 the new Conservative government tried to strengthen the provinces financially. This was done by increasing their share of federal revenues from three direct taxes. It was done by increasing the grants and by increasing the number of joint programs. All these

things were done to strengthen the ability of the provinces to carry out their responsibilities within their jurisdictions. This program cost the federal government almost twice as much as was spent in 1956-57. It is a matter of common knowledge that there would not have been a single deficit in the period 1957 to 1963 if it had not been for our trying to strengthen the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In arranging the distribution of the revenues between the federal and provincial governments there was none of this take it or leave it attitude at the conferences. We consulted with the provinces, listened to their case and tried to do the best job we could do for them.
Take a look at the things we did. When we moved into those areas where there was concurrent jurisdiction and into those areas which were strictly provincial in jurisdiction we were scrupulously careful not only to consult with the provinces but to get agreement. I give as evidence of this-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Columbia river treaty?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -the resources for tomorrow conference. I give as evidence of this the negotiations in regard to the Columbia river treaty. We set up a joint liaison committee between the federal government and the province of British Columbia. The Liberals had been unable to do anything since 1944 with regard to the development of the Columbia, but we got the Columbia agreement moving forward. We carried the support of the government of British Columbia every step of the way. The minutes of that joint committee are available for ministers of the crown to read. This is one of the best examples of a federal government with power over an international river co-operating with the owner of the resource, the province of British Columbia.
I give as another example the joint programs we embarked upon where the provincial governments were consulted not only singly but together until we got agreement all across the country. There was none of this uproar we have today. I give, for example, the ARDA program. So far as agriculture is concerned the ARDA program was within the jurisdiction of the federal government, but because it moved into areas which were under the jurisdiction of the provinces there was very careful consultation and agreement. All during the tremendous amount of action that took place to get at the problems facing
Interim Supply
Canada there was not a serious quarrel with any province.


An hon. Member:: Just among the ministers.


Mr. Tardif:: Nobody gets into a quarrel when he does not do anything.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Never in the history of federal government was so much done in so>
short a space of time as we did it. But what happened in 1963 when the new government came into power?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Calamity.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Without any consultation with the provinces, without any agreement with the provinces, the federal government rushed into the Canada pension plan, into the Department of Industry legislation, into university scholarships and so on.


William Moore Benidickson: What is the matter with them?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Every one of these things was an invasion of provincial rights.


William Moore Benidickson: What is the matter with them?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Not only was there strong objection from the provinces but there was such an uproar all across the country that the government turned in panic and confusion and began the greatest retreat since Napoleon left Moscow. The government has moved into its old policy of centralization and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, why? There may be two reasons. First, eight members of the new government were ex-civil servants indoctrinated with civil service ideas and they wanted to follow the old fashioned policy of encroaching on provincial rights. More important than that is the second reason. The second reason was that in the new government there was a new group of men who believed in their own writings as the gospel, and that the only way to govern the country was by planning and interference with the affairs of business in this country.


William Moore Benidickson: Barry Goldwater.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These planners got on the treasury benches. Read what the Gordon commission report says. Read what the present Minister of Finance said in his Kingston paper of 1960. Read that book, "Mein Kampf".


Mr. Francis:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You will find that all those things that came about in the budget were

Interim Supply
mentioned prior to that time in these documents. These people who came into power tried to plan and direct the economy under the guise of a protective nationalism. This is the reason for the policy of the federal government of interfering with provincial rights. The reaction of the provinces was so strong-


William Moore Benidickson: I want to know if that is the Progressive Conservative defence.


An hon. Member:: It is nice to see the minister of mines here.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -that the federal government fell back and followed up this panic by one of the longest retreats we have ever seen. As a matter of fact, so great was the confusion going into the year 1964 that they had to think of something to avoid this powerful public confrontation, not only between Quebec and the federal government but between all the provinces and the federal government, that they dragged in the flag issue to try to cover up.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Has the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) the right to try to incriminate the province of Quebec at this stage of the discussion by stating unceasingly "Quebec with Ottawa, Quebec versus the other provinces"?
Is the hon. member unable to prove himself purely and simply a Canadian who speaks on behalf of his party for Canada and not only in the name of one province?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member's translation system was not working too well. I made it very clear that this reaction from the provinces was a reaction from all the provinces and not only from Quebec. I am actually trying to point out that Quebec is not the culprit in this matter. I am trying to say that the provinces had their rights infringed during the first three or four months of the new Liberal government regime, and so strong was the reaction that the federal government retreated to such a point that they are scattering to the four winds. The people of this country, in Quebec and every other province, are concerned about what is happening. It is for this reason I am concerned about these petitions that are beginning to come before us and I am wondering if we should even vote supply to keep this government in power any longer.
I should like to start by quoting from a speech the Prime Minister made which is

reported in a well known Liberal newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press for Tuesday, October 27. The speech by the Prime Minister dealt with the subject of co-operative federalism, and the portion I wish to quote is in quotation marks:
It means that the federal-the central-government should not enter provincial fields without the willing consent of the provinces; that in all matters over which jurisdiction is shared in the constitution, the federal government should cooperate closely with the provinces; in some cases, and always by agreement, taking on the responsibility for action; in others, again by agreement, leaving that responsibility to the provinces; in still others, sharing both the responsibility and the action.
Then, this Liberal writer says, and I quote:
This is a bit hazy, but if it means what it seems to mean, questions are surely in order.
Then, this writer goes on to deal with another minister in this article and quotes what the minister said in the House of Commons. I am taking the liberty of quoting from the article rather than from the Hansard report. I was present in my place when this answer was given to an hon. member to my right. This is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, and this was two days after the Prime Minister's speech:
It is not only unusual but I might say rather improper for a federal government to request heads of provincial governments to approve either in advance or concurrently what is wholly federal legislation.
Here we have one minister saying it is even improper to discuss a matter with the provinces, while the Prime Minister is laying down all the conditions for consultation, for action and responsibility. This contradiction is causing confusion for more reasons than would appear on the surface. We have other people out making speeches. One is a Quebec minister who went across to Europe and spoke about what is happening at the present time. This is the man who won fame and fortune as the head of the Montreal stock exchange, Mr. Kierans. I will read his little statement:
The federal government.. .is running superfluous ministries of industry, agriculture, resources and fisheries-
Not only does Mr. Lesage say the federal members from Quebec are superfluous, but here is one of his ministers saying that four federal departments are superfluous.


Gerald Augustine Regan: What did you say in China?


Howard Russell MacEwan: He said that the junior member for Halifax should be quiet.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the hon. member who
represents a port city would do a little more to encourage trade where trade possibilities are, he would be a help to this country.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please; the two hon. members for Halifax are rising on points of order.


John Edward Lloyd: I should like to have the name and date of the newspaper from which the hon. member is quoting.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Take the gum out of your mouth so you will look like a member of parliament.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Halifax on a point of order.


John Edward Lloyd: I believe it is the privilege of members to speak in this house. If there is any point an hon. member wishes to discuss or any question concerning this parliament, if the hon. member will be honest enough to state his proposition in such a way that he cannot run and hide but will state his proposition on any platform anywhere, I will be happy to take him on.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has suggested that I do not concern myself with the proper interests of the port of Halifax. I would only suggest in answer that if he did as good a job for the prairies as I do for Halifax he would be well off.


Howard Russell MacEwan: We will quote that.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; these are not proper points of order. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle should continue.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, 1 am sure that by now you must be used to this high level of interruptions that occur. I think when the people of these constituencies read the high intellectual level of the interruptions made by their members, these members will not be back.
I was speaking about a Quebec minister who holds the view that we have no right-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I rise-


Howard Russell MacEwan: Look who has come out of the bulrushes.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure the house will agree with me that I have a legitimate point
Interim Supply
of order. I should like to refer to Beauchesne, citation 157, paragraph (6), which reads:
The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the house, either directly or indirectly is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others.
At the outset of his remarks, the hon. member said that a large part of his speech was going to be taken up with newspaper quotations. I think at this point, Mr. Chairman, we should have a ruling. There is no doubt about it the hon. member is completely out of order when he reads at length from newspapers and quotes those who have no responsibility as representatives in the House of Commons.


Lucien Lamoureux: The point of order raised is a legitimate point to the extent that the newspaper articles from which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has been quoting may reflect upon a debate before the house. I did not notice, however, that there was a reflection to any extent on actual debate in the house in the quotations used by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and I think he should be allowed to continue.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the debate that is taking place is one that has been chosen by hon. members themselves, dealing with repatriation of the constitution. The hon. member having introduced the debate, when he introduces quotations from those outside the house he is, in my contention, abrogating the rules of the house and should cease and desist from such practice.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, my sympathy goes out to you.
There is not too much time for me to finish my remarks but I want to make my point doubly clear. At the beginning I said that of all the things that were disturbing the Canadian people today the worst was the confusion in high places here in Ottawa. At first they thought the government was overcentralizing. Now it is not even holding the positions that have been traditionally held and as a result, more important than any one other issue, monetary or political, the people of the country want it held together as one country.
However, we have all these different theories, some of which would mean that the federal government would be left with almost no power. Such statements are being made by people in high places in the Liberal party,

Interim Supply
and there is no correction from the Prime Minister. There is no correction from any spokesman for the government. If any government ever needed a respite it is this one so that its members could get together and learn each others' first names, and find out what the course is, instead of one going this way, the other going that way and all the little ones scattering in every direction.
This is not only a schizophrenic government. This is a government gone completely mad, and because of this uncertainty in high places why should we vote it supply? Does it deserve this $740 million? Does it not think it should come in here and clear up these difficulties that are disturbing the nation? Why should we give it two months supply? There are big issues involved. For two or three years a situation has been developing in the province of Quebec and across the nation, but especially in that province where 83 per cent of the farmers get less than $2,000 a year. Who is going to stand up in this chamber and defend the people of Quebec?


An hon. Member:: Balcer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The people of Quebec are being bypassed. The same thing is happening in Quebec today that happened in my province and in Alberta 30 years ago. Indeed I suspect that not too long from now you will find knocking at the doors of this parliament building several hundred, if not several thousand farmers from Quebec asking, "What are you doing about our problems?" All we get is this double talk.
It is said that all we want is a flag with one maple leaf on it. What will that do to help the farmers not only of Quebec but all through the Ottawa valley, and all through northern Ontario, through New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? I have been there and I have seen their problems. Just walk down the streets of Montreal today and try to explain to those people how happy they will be now that they have got a flag that is coloured red, with nothing of their religious background or traditions displayed on it. What a mockery this is.
Why should we vote $740 million to a government that allows these conditions to
continue? This government has allowed all the policies we initiated to die on the vine and fade away. Why not ask the Canadian people if this double talk is what they want? We did not bring the flag into the house. It was not in the speech from the throne. It was brought in by the Prime Minister, and he has to take it out.
Who wants a flag when the weakness we have is due to the fact-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member's time expired about three minutes ago and the Chair allowed him those extra minutes in order to take interruptions into account.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has expressed a good many views which I am sure are unanimously held on this side of the chamber, unless you want to count the leader of the Liberal party in the far corner. He expresses most of the sentiments which are agreed to by the government-or perhaps it might be the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because they voted for his flag.


Lucien Lamoureux: Right at the outset, and before the hon. member calls it ten o'clock, I would invite him to relate his remarks to the resolution before the committee.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, the house is expectantly awaiting some announcement from the house leader that will be of importance to the people of Canada. Has he anything for us tonight?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the most important announcement to be made is that when interim supply is dealt with by the house we will go on with other business. When we reach that happy stage tomorrow we propose to submit the redistribution bill for consideration by the house, and if that is disposed of by the house we will then call the hours of labour legislation.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 3, 1964