1964-05-21

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa,
May 21, 1964
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, May 21, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General. PRIVILEGE



MR. MACINNIS  CARTOON APPEARING IN OTTAWA &quot;CITIZEN&quot; OF MAY 20

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting many hon. members of this house and members of the Royal Canadian Legion and their families. My question of privilege is based on a cartoon appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, May 20. This is an example of yellow journalism, holding up to ridicule and contempt the image of all veterans throughout this country, with one exception. I and the members of my party deplore this malicious attack on the veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. PROCEDURE



CONCURRENCE IN FIFTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) moves that the fifth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented on May 19, 1964, be now concurred in.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to thank the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for seconding this motion. The fifth report, concurrence in which we now ask, consists of only one sentence; therefore perhaps I might read it:
Your committee recommends that the provisional standing orders and recommendations contained in your committee's second report, concurred in by the house on April 20, 1964, which are now in effect until the end of May, be continued in effect until the end of the present session, unless it is otherwise ordered by the house.
The provisional standing orders and recommendations referred to in the second report are those under which we are now operating with respect to questions prior to the calling of the orders of the day, debate on adjournment motions three nights a week, and the handling of notices of motions for the production of papers. Under the decision of the house taken on April 20, 1964, these are in effect until the end of this month. It is the feeling of your committee, Mr. Speaker, that the house would like to continue the trial period for these standing orders and recommendations until the end of the present session, and if this report is concurred in, that will be the effect.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is significant that this motion is moved and seconded by members of the opposition, indicating at least our very sincere efforts to see that something effective is done to restore the prestige and effectiveness of parliament and to repair damage previously done. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that having new rules themselves is not sufficient, and that in addition to following them we must give effect to the spirit of the rules already in existence. It has been indicated so far this session that we do intend to do our best to carry out the intent of the rules and perform the business of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. P. Deschafelets (Minister of Public Works) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-21 (from the Senate), to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river between the city of Ste

Inquiries of the Ministry Foy, in the county of Quebec and the municipality of St. Nicolas, in the county of Levis, both in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any basis in fact to the press report that the personal flag to which he has given his support has now been accepted by the cabinet.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is no basis for any statement that any personal flag of anybody's has been accepted. There is basis for the statement that the cabinet decided this morning on a design, which it will shortly submit to parliament in the form of a resolution.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question-


John George Diefenbaker: I would be glad if the hon. gentleman asked his question, but first of all I should like to know if the Prime Minister will tell us whether this is the flag he exhibited to a group of newsmen last Thursday night at his home, and did he at that time say "This is my personal choice as a flag design"? Did he also say that he had sent a telegram to the Queen informing her that the red ensign would not be the Canadian flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, some of those who are laughing at the moment are not laughing inwardly. May I ask the Prime Minister this. Did he on Thursday night meet at his home with a select group of six members of the press gallery, show them a model flag, and state that this was his personal choice?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with certain members of the press at a social occasion; I do not deny that. Indeed, the right hon. gentleman does that himself quite frequently. I hope that when he meets his friends from the press at his home they have as good a time as I hope they would have at my home. Mr. Speaker, we had a cup of tea, and there was some discussion of the question of national emblems. The national flag issue certainly came up, and I expressed in a personal way to my friends my views on that subject.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister this. Is the report by Val Sears in the Toronto Star that "Mr. Pearson personally had chosen a flag design," and that "he had sent a telegram to the Queen informing her" as I said a moment ago, true?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Val Sears was not at this social gathering in question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it is inaccurate.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question about the hour long film that was prepared on his career and personality. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister if his-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I understand there are one or two supplementary questions. The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Port Arthur has been recognized. Surely he cannot be interrupted in this manner.


An hon. Member:: Are you afraid of it?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is quite easy to solve. The hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if the flag design of which he expressed approval is the one that was approved by the cabinet this morning.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend should wait for a few days, and he will see the design of the flag.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I wonder if he would tell us whether in the consideration of government business the government is going to give priority to the resolution with regard to the flag over the introduction of an address to the Queen in the United Kingdom asking for an amendment to the British North America Act to provide the foundation for the pension legislation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question of the address to the Queen of Canada with regard to the amendment of our constitution can only be decided when we get the agreement of all the provinces on the exact

formula for this address. As soon as that formula is agreed upon, legislation will be put on the order paper and dealt with very promptly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is very innocuous and I am sure it will not offend the Minister of Transport. I ask the Prime Minister if this latest effort in connection with the flag is to be known as the Pearson prognostication or the Matheson masterpiece.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will consult the provinces before presenting his flag design to parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it is a matter for the responsibility of the Canadian parliament.


Robert Carman Coates: Does the Prime Minister not consider it to be of the utmost importance to national unity to have the views of all provincial governments on this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope that the views of all Canadians will be represented in this house.


Robert Carman Coates: Does he not feel that the views of all Canadians should be given the opportunity of expression in a national referendum?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a supplementary question?


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Can the Prime Minister tell the house if the adoption of a single distinctive national flag will automatically entail our rejecting the red ensign once and for all, that is to say that it will not be flown next to the distinctive national flag?


An hon. Member:: Ask Mr. Pierre Sevigny. [Text]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is a very important question.


Mr. Speaker:: I can only assume that it is the good weather that gives the hon. member so much energy at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I addressed a direct question to the Prime Minister, I asked him to answer and he refused to answer my question because it is a question that embarrasses the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Prime Minister another question on a subject which
Inquiries of the Ministry has already been gone over. It is simply this: does the flag design he has chosen have a maple leaf on it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does it have three maple leaves on it?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he or his personal advisers, to his knowledge, refused approval of the film prepared by Intervideo Productions Limited that was to be screened by the C.B.C.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand this is a matter entirely between the C.B.C. and the producer of the film.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In that event, Mr. Speaker, if it were possible for the production to be seen on some network other than the C.B.C., would the Prime Minister and his advisers give their approval for that to be done?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not censor films on this side of the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he has had a private preview of the film?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh? What were you doing it for?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend should not get so excited.


John George Diefenbaker: Did you find it a horror film?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am only sorry, Mr. Speaker, that events have not so transpired that I will get this additional publicity.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether there were five separate screenings of this particular film in his office?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no screening in my office. I saw this picture in Toronto at a C.B.C. studio.


John George Diefenbaker: For what purpose; censorship?


Erik Nielsen: I have a further supplementary question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had grave doubts that the last question was in order but in order to try to get rid of the matter I allowed it. If the supplementary is along the same line I am afraid it will be out of order.


Erik Nielsen: If Your Honour is ruling it out of order on the ground of urgency, which I assume Your Honour is doing despite the great national interest in the question and the cost of $35,000 to the Canadian taxpayers, I give notice that I wish to debate this question at ten o'clock this evening.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Can he inform the house when the policy of the C.B.C. was changed so as to allow the Prime Minister to editorially review a film before a decision is made on its presentation?


Mr. Speaker:: There does not seem to me to be that tremendous urgency that requires an immediate answer. Would the hon. member put the question on the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: I would like to give notice to debate it this evening.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the earlier questions I am sure the Prime Minister would want to tell the house what business it was of his to have a preview of what was supposed to be the story of his conduct as prime minister. Did he or did anyone on his behalf advise the C.B.C. that this should not be produced because it had all the appearance of a horror mystery?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows this matter is coming up for debate at ten o'clock, but to anticipate that debate, because he has such a strong interest in the matter, I might point out to him that the C.B.C. have already stated that this is a matter for their own decision and that no pressure of any kind was brought to bear on them by any member of the government to deal with this in any other way than they saw fit.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the question I asked. The question I asked was under what circumstances this preview took place. Was it at the request of the Prime Minister or a member of his staff; for it is a most unusual thing that Canadians have to have him or those associated with him censor what is being produced on the C.B.C.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The circumstances were
perfectly proper. The initiative was taken by the producer of the film, and no question of censorship arises.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would allow a supplementary question. Can


the Prime Minister answer whether the statement of Intervideo Productions Limited is accurate, that there were five separate showings to the Prime Minister and other members of his cabinet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend cannot have it both ways. If he wants a debate at ten o'clock he will have to wait. He has asked for a debate at ten o'clock, so perhaps he can wait until then.



LEGAL ACTION RESPECTING PROGRAM &quot;TWENTY YEARS LATER&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State who answers to the house for the C.B.C. Does the minister intend to recommend that the government take legal action against the C.B.C. following the program "Twenty years Later" presented on Saturday, May 9, which was an insult to religion and which questioned the value of religious teaching in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: This surely is a question for the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, after ten o'clock.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question is largely based on facts brought out at the recent annual meeting of the Montreal neurological institute. Is the government currently discussing policy relating to federal assistance for medical research in Canada, and can we expect an announcement in this regard in the relatively near future?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank all hon. members for their very friendly welcome on my return to the house, and I also wish to express my thanks to all those members who were kind enough to visit me and send me notes.
May I say to my hon. friend that this matter, like many others, is under constant review by my department as well as by the medical research council. It is also part of the terms of reference of the royal commission on health which has not yet reported. I should like to say to my hon. friend, however, that when

Inquiries of the Ministry
developments warrant it I shall be very [Text]
pleased to see that any government announce- Hon. paui Hellyer (Minister of National ment is brought to his attention.	Defence): The policy of the government was
announced in the white paper, and there has EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	been no change since that time.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRESENT POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the urgent and deteriorating situation in Laos and the presence in that country of Canada's member of the truce supervisory commission, does the minister have some word for the house?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Laos, as I mentioned yesterday and as we now know from the statement made by Mr. Stevenson at the United Nations this morning, has deteriorated, and this does affect the work of the commission. I expressed regret the other day that the Polish member of the commission had temporarily withdrawn from service on that commission. I said that the Polish government had been requested by Canada to have its member of the commission resume his duties.
The situation is one that is changing rapidly and we will have to await events. I may be in a position to make a statement on this tomorrow when the department's estimates are before the house.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Does the government of Canada support the policy of the government of the United States with respect to Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with this question, but I hope to deal with it at greater length tomorrow.



REPORTED CANADIAN AGREEMENT TO INCREASE MILITARY COMMITMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he tell us if there is any truth in the newspaper article stating that the government intends to increase its contribution to the NATO forces? Is it true that Canada is willing to increase its military contribution to NATO?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him, in view of the expiration of the term of office of Mr. MacArthur as a member of the unemployment insurance commission, whether it is the intention of the government to appoint him for another term. If so, when does the government intend to announce his reappointment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour is not in his seat at the moment. I will discuss this matter with him, and I hope to make an announcement tomorrow or Monday.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, to follow up my question to the Prime Minister regarding the unemployment insurance commissioner, would he give consideration to the fact that many of the affiliates of the Canadian Labour Congress have forwarded representations on behalf of Mr. MacArthur to the Minister of Labour, and would he take these into consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I think I have received some myself.



RUSSIA-SUGGESTED EXCHANGE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FOR WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to put this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, but in their absence maybe I can direct it to the Prime Minister. I may say it deals with a very important matter concerning western Canada. Reference has been made in an article in the New York Times, reprinted in the Calgary Herald, to negotiations between the government of Canada and the Soviet union to accept petroleum and other oil products in return for Canadian wheat. Is there any justification for this report in the New York Times'!


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, but it is important, Mr. Speaker, and I shall look into it.

Inquiries of the Ministry URANIUM



ALLOCATION OF UNSOLD PORTION OF GUNNAR MINES CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Would the government consider allocating to Metal Mines Limited, Bancroft, Ontario, the unsold Gunnar Mines-United Kingdom contract for 1,200,000 pounds of uranium oxide, thereby assuring the operation of Metal Mines Limited until the end of 1964 without any other assistance from the government?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, it is very urgent at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite sure there is no doubt about the importance of the question, but according to the rules handed to me by the house questions must be of sufficient urgency and importance to require an immediate answer. It does seem to me, not knowing what the minister has in mind, that he is entitled to notice on this question to be able to make a full and correct answer.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Then I should like to give notice to debate this at ten o'clock.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he, today or tomorrow, make the statement he is supposed to make concerning the setting-up of a commission of inquiry on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and tell us what kind of a commission it will be?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: I am sorry I cannot make such a statement today or tomorrow, but I shall certainly do so next Monday.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. It is urgent and

will require just a simple answer. Will the minister soon be in a position to announce emergency measures to meet the low water conditions in lake Huron and Georgian bay?


Mr. Speaker:: This surely is a question for the order paper.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I merely asked if the minister would soon be in a position to make an announcement, which only requires a yes or no answer. I think the minister is prepared to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Whether the minister is ready or not, it is my duty to apply the rules as given to me by the house, and there is not that sense of urgency or importance that would require an answer at this time.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and ask him whether he has had any recent communication from the international joint commission in regard to the Pembina river development project in Manitoba and North Dakota?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the periodicals issue. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether in recent personal interviews he has had with the principals in the case-I am thinking of Maclean-Hunter and Time magazine-he has informed them he intends to proceed with the legislation in the form in which it was originally presented to this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had no interview on this matter with any representative of Time magazine. I did have an interview with representatives of Maclean-Hunter publications. The resolution is on the order paper and we will proceed with it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As is?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's insistence a year and a half ago that parliament at that time should get on with its constitutional responsibility in the matter of redistribution, when can we expect this matter to be proceeded with?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hope, sir, as soon as there was some indication it would be proceeded with.


Mr. Churchill:: What do you mean by that? [Later:]


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wish to ask the minister a supplementary question. If I heard him rightly he said the matter would not be taken up again until there was some indication it would be proceeded with. Does this mean the government is knuckling under to the Tory filibuster?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman, I think, misunderstood my answer. There was no negative in it at all.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister tell the house when we can expect the establishment of the Indian claims commission?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Not before the bill is approved by this house.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the answer given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to a question asked a few minutes ago, can the right hon. gentleman give the house any information as to when we can expect the introduction of legislation leading to the establishment of an Indian claims commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We know how important this matter is, and we hope to get this legislation before the house as soon as possible. I understand we are still receiving representations from certain Indian bands, but that is not holding it
Inquiries of the Ministry up. As soon as there is a possibility of getting it through the house and of making progress, the measure will be brought in.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour in the absence of the minister himself. Because of the failure of the attempt to bring together the two parties concerned in the longshoremen's dispute at St. John's, Newfoundland, can the hon. gentleman tell us what efforts are being made by the Minister of Labour to bring these people together in order to end this long standing dispute?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: As far as the Department of Labour is concerned, there has been no failure. The officials are continuing their efforts to help bring about a settlement of this matter. I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister when he returns.


Michael Starr: In view of what the parliamentary secretary has just said, is it not a fact-and he can confirm or deny it-that the conciliation officials and others who were endeavouring to bring these parties together have given up because they were unable to do so?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is not a failure on the part of the Department of Labour or the minister. This is a legal strike, and the department is keeping in close touch with the situation.


Michael Starr: What are the minister and department doing with respect to reaching a settlement?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Carrying out the natural processes under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address an urgent and important question to the Minister of Public Works. I apologize for not having given him notice, but the matter has arisen within the last few minutes. The question is urgent because the external affairs committee is meeting at 3.30 this afternoon, and we require an answer from the minister for purposes connected with that meeting.

Interim Supply
Has the hon. gentleman's department obtained an estimate of the cost of replacing all wharf facilities on the Columbia river in connection with the building of the high Arrow dam, should that dam be built?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 quite appreciate the importance of the question, but I do not know how the hon. member can expect the minister to answer a detailed inquiry of this kind on the orders of the day. Perhaps the hon. member would put it on the order paper, or communicate with the minister.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of an answer given to me on December 21 by the then minister of transport when we were discussing the estimates of the air transport board. On that occasion the hon. member for Ottawa West, who is now President of the Privy Council, said:
The Aeronautics Act will be coming back for debate very early I hope in the new session, and there will then be an opportunity for an appropriate amendment to cover the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
I wonder whether the Minister of Transport can shed any light on the position and tell us how this matter stands at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a notice on the order paper, and I hope it will be reached in due course.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Mcllrailh moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $338,136,717.59, being the aggregate of-
(a)	One twelfth of the total of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $329,299,209.25;
(b)	an additional four twelfths of the amount of forestry item 25 of the said main estimates, $480,333.34;
(c)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of finance item 15 of the said main estimates, $1,500,000.00;
(d)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of external affairs item 15 of the said main estimates, $1,597,000.00;
(e)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of finance item 10, forestry items 10, 20 and 30, justice item 1, mines and technical surveys item

70, national research council item 5, and privy council item 15, $5,260,175.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would simply ask the President of the Privy Council whether he intends to make a statement in connection with this motion for interim supply.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt, but it is difficult for the Chair to hear what is being said.


George James McIlraith: The supply asked for is one twelfth of the amount in the estimates. That is for the month of June, and a further interim supply bill will therefore have to be brought down within a month unless, of course, the house passes the estimates, something which I do not anticipate.
The committee is also being asked to grant the additional items indicated, and if hon. members wish to inquire about any one of them I can give some further details. However, these are only items in respect of which payment is required to be made in special circumstances, in some cases because shipping on the great lakes is involved and payment for shipping is done in the months between April and November. Therefore a larger proportion than the one twelfth is required.
Another example is grants to municipalities, where the actual payments are made to the municipalities at various times during the year and certain of the payments have to be made before the end of June. In one case one half of the total payment is made by the end of June. Another example I could give of where a special item is asked for is the United Nations grants, which are made to the organizations on certain annual dates in keeping with their budgets. This has always been the practice, and these are typical examples of the kind of items where more than one twelfth is being asked for.
I of course give the usual undertaking that it is customary to give, namely that the passage of this interim supply bill does not in any way interfere with the full right of hon. members to discuss the items in the main estimates when they are brought forward. I do not know if there is any further explanation I can usefully give at this time, but if there are any questions I shall be glad to try to answer them.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am one of the members of the house who consider that under ordinary circumstances a motion for the granting of interim supply is one which can be considered as a fairly routine matter perhaps not requiring any extended debate. However, I do believe there are certain circumstances when a member must exercise his

right under this motion to raise certain questions, which apparently cannot be raised in any other way, which have some urgency attached to them.
I am sure the President of the Privy Council, who apparently is charged with the responsibility of piloting this motion through the house, will not be at all surprised if I indicate that I desire to rise at this time to discuss the question of the amount granted by the federal government to the Alberni valley and west coast disaster fund to assist the re-establishment of the victims of the tidal wave disaster which struck the west coast of Canada following the earthquake in Alaska at Easter. I think the fact that I am raising it will surprise him less because His Honour the Speaker saw fit, when I rose to move the adjournment of the house on the day following the announcement by the Prime Minister that the federal government was contributing $250,000 to this fund, to disallow the motion and therefore no debate on this question was possible at that time.
The minister may recall that I did ask the Prime Minister a question on this subject on Tuesday when we reconvened following the Victoria day week end, and the Prime Minister had this to say with regard to the amount of the grant:
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me and to the government, having regard to the measure of the damage -and I do not depreciate that-and having regard to the responsibilities of the provincial government and the resources of the provincial government, that the federal contribution of a quarter of a million dollars is fair in the circumstances, and is in accord with the principles which have been followed in the past.
At this point I might just make some reference to the last phrase in that statement, namely "and is in accord with the principles which have been followed in the past". My own feeling is that one of the reasons there has been misunderstanding and some measure of political controversy arising out of this question, and one of the reasons there has been expressed a great measure of dissatisfaction with the contribution made by the federal government, not only by me as a member for the district but by people of the area, is precisely because of the fact that there really have been no principles in the past which have been followed in this connection. Some members of the house may be a little surprised at the reaction to this amount, because it is quite true that it is not every day of the week that the federal government decides to make a contribution of a quarter of a million dollars, which in some circumstances could be regarded as a fairly substantial amount.
Interim Supply
I want to assure the committee, Mr. Chairman, that in raising this question I certainly am not speaking only for myself. Newspaper headlines do not always give a very accurate impression of the situation which exists, but I think in this situation the newspaper headlines which appeared in the press of the area on May 14 and 15, immediately following the Prime Minister's announcement, give a very accurate summation of the reaction of the people in that area. The headline of the lead story in the daily Free Press, which is published in Nanaimo, of May 14 says "Ottawa gives meagre sum of $250,000 to Albernis". In the following day's issue of that newspaper the headline reads "Federal donation brings only anger to Albernis". I think the house will agree that headlines indicating a reaction of that kind in some respects put a very anomalous situation before the house, because normally when the government takes action to make a grant or a donation we in this house expect that the contribution will be received with at least a fair amount of appreciation, if not gratitude.
I want to make it quite clear at once that my personal reaction to this situation is very much in accord with the sentiments expressed in those newspaper headlines. I want to try to explain to the committee some of the reasons for that situation, not only in the minds of the people in the area but also for my own reaction as the representative in this house of those people. It arises out of a situation which perhaps it may be difficult for people like the President of the Privy Council or the Minister of Finance, who come from different parts of Canada, to appreciate. I think those of us who have had an opportunity of becoming familiar with the situation, however, can understand it. I feel quite sure that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources-whom I am glad to see in the committee-has some understanding of this situation. I should not be at all surprised if he himself may not be somewhat disappointed that the amount of the contribution was not substantially larger in view of the particular circumstances, although I realize that he, being a member of the government, is not free to express such feelings even if he might wish to do so.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources did give a good deal of detailed attention to this situation, and I would like to say that in the dealings I have had with him, as the local member, I have found him most co-operative and helpful in many ways right from the outset of this situation. Nevertheless the facts remain as I have stated them as far as the reaction to this federal contribution is concerned.

Interim Supply
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am availing myself of the opportunity that has been afforded through the introduction of this motion for interim supply to make some further attempt to have the government give reconsideration to this whole situation and in particular to the matter of increasing the amount of federal participation.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that one of the reasons for the reaction on May 14 and 15 of disappointment and a sense of frustration arises from the fact that the federal government, through the Prime Minister and through the minister of northern affairs acting at the request of the Prime Minister, gave an immediate and favourable response to the emergency situation when it arose. Certainly the result was to create an impression in the minds of the people who had suffered, and in the minds of the local authorities who were attempting to bring order out of chaos, that the federal government of Canada could be relied upon to carry its full share of the job of reconstruction and re-establishment when the time came for them to do so. I realize that I have no hope of persuading the cabinet to change its mind in this matter through an emotional appeal, and it is for that reason that I am going to try to set out what I consider to be some of the factual background to the situation.
The response given by the federal government under the Prime Minister's lead at the time of the emergency is, I suggest, a very important aspect of the events which led up to the reaction of anger which has been outlined by the local press and in many other ways. I think it is also important for us to realize that there is a broader background to this situation arising from the attitude of the people of that area, an attitude which I feel is quite generally held. In my view they feel that they are Canadians first, and therefore they look for and expect from the federal government the interest, the authority and the responsibility to deal with emergency situations and with the welfare of Canadians generally no matter where they may live in this country.
This state of mind has resulted, I would say, in a very general feeling that the ideas of federal-provincial cost sharing, particularly as they developed during the period since the second world war, are good. I think in the minds of most people in my part of the country such things as federal participation in the old age assistance program or the trans-Canada highway program are generally accepted as sound and good ideas; and as hon. members will realize, generally speaking most of these cost sharing programs have been pretty well based on the principle of a

50-50 contribution as between the provincial and federal levels of government.
I think I can go further than that, Mr. Chairman, and suggest that most of the people in my area would welcome an extension of that sort of principle. For example, they would welcome a much broader program of participation by the federal level of government so as to ensure that there would be equality of opportunity all across Canada to benefit from the advantages of higher education in this day and age.
I think this question has to be considered against the background of thinking in the particular area of the country from which I come. While it is true that if one reads the fine print in the statement made by the federal government there is some reference to limitations of assistance and federal responsibility which might be undertaken in any disaster, nevertheless the general feeling which the people in my area had was that when the federal government said it was ready to help, and followed that up by sending in immediately, at the request of the provincial authorities, army engineers to assist in the clean-up job, it would be in there with both feet to help on a full scale basis.
There was also a good deal of discussion of what had happened in some other disaster situations. Reference was made to the situations which arose at the time of the Fraser valley flood, the Winnipeg flood, the Rimouski fire, and of course more recently the Hay river flood. In those situations, of which people had current recollections and knowledge, federal participation had been substantial, and as far as was understood had been based upon full participation in meeting with provincial and local authorities and in joining with voluntary contributors to deal with the situation.
As those of us who have been following the situation and have been in the middle of it are well aware, after the initial clean-up period, which was well handled, and after the immediate emergency had been dealt with by local welfare authorities and provincial welfare officials, there developed a long period of waiting during which people did not know what was going to happen. This period of waiting, of uncertainty and growing frustration went on for weeks. This was in contrast to the initial coming forward by the federal government, and I think this period of waiting was because-I think the facts of the situation will bear this out-there was no definitive kind of policy statement made by the provincial government during the early period of the disaster. There was no indication really of what, if anything, the provincial

government was prepared to do under its responsibilities when an appraisal of the damage had been made.
As this situation of anxiety, frustration and in some cases near despair grew with the passage of time, more and more people came to pin their hopes on what the federal government would be prepared to do when the provincial government might at long last make up its mind what it wanted. So when the proposal was made by the provincial authority for a cost sharing arrangement in regard to the net depreciated appraised loss, most of the people who were affected felt that their immediate problems were over. They assumed, wrongly as events have shown, that the federal government would be prepared to accept some such proposal, and that with the possibility that the depreciated appraised loss would be met by direct government funds, the very substantial and generous contributions which were flowing in as a result of the initial organization at the local level of a disaster fund to which people could contribute would make up the difference in the cases where the depreciated loss evaluation would not suitably assist the victims of the disaster to re-establish themselves.
The result was that when the federal government announced it was prepared to make a contribution of $250,000, this announcement hit the people who were suffering and the people who were attempting to carry on a program of re-establishment at the local level like a bombshell. Perhaps it did not surprise me as completely as it did many of the people at home. Knowing the disappointment of many of the people, I freely confess that I felt a great sense of frustration and rage. I just could not help but ask myself, and I am still asking myself, why my constituents, my friends and my neighbours have to be the ones who are caught in this petty constitutional bickering. I had hoped that the federal government, knowing the situation that exists in British Columbia in respect of the attitudes that have been taken over the years by the present premier of that province, would have said that in this case we are going to deal with this emergency situation to the full, and then we will sit down and in practical fashion weigh the pros and cons of how disasters should be met in this country.
Then we might try to reach some kind of agreed formula as to the kind and size of disaster in which the federal government will participate in helping the people. If there are principles which have been followed in the past, as the Prime Minister says, I would submit that they are not very well
Interim Supply
known to the members in this house or to the people of this country. So far as I know there has never been any kind of agreement between the federal and provincial levels of government that has been written down.
So far as the people of my area are concerned, as I said earlier I believe most of them feel they are Canadians first, and they want a federal government which will accept responsibility for the welfare and well being of all Canadians, as circumstances require, in every part of this country. While it is quite true that in provincial elections many people have given support to the administration which has now been in power in British Columbia since 1952, in my view because they seem to think credit is due that administration for the prosperity and economic development that has taken place over that period, nevertheless I believe many of those people who support the present administration in British Columbia for one reason or another have not very much use for the rather petulant and arrogant separatism that comes from the premier of that province.
Those of us who live in that province are quite familiar with the pattern which has been followed in this connection. At one moment the premier of British Columbia is outdoing Rene Levesque in taking positions that would mean the balkanization of this country, while in the next moment he is putting out both hands to the federal government and saying "Gimme, gimme". Those of us who live in this province are quite well aware of that situation. As I have said, so far as I am concerned, this was not the time nor the occasion for the federal government to take issue with Mr. Bennett on the kind of request he made.
I have had one or two looks recently at the British North America Act. It is, perhaps, rather prophetic for the people of Albemi that section 92, which lists the exclusive affairs of provincial legislatures, lists, No. 13 as the one which gives the provinces jurisdiction over property and civil rights. While I normally do not consider myself a superstitious person, it seems that in this particular situation there is some reason to be. I hope it is not going to continue to be an unlucky section for the people of British Columbia, whether they live in the Alberni valley or in any other part of the province or, for that matter, for the people who live in any other part of the country.
I feel this is a matter which deserves reconsideration now. The working out of some detailed plan for dealing with disaster situations is something which should be the early concern of the members of this house and of the federal government. It is something which

Interim Supply
should be considered expeditiously in a conference with the provinces. I do feel that in view of the continuing anxiety and the continuing frustration of the people who were involved in this tidal wave disaster, in view of the Very obvious uncertainties in the kind of statement the Prime Minister has made, that it has been done "in accord with principles", this is a matter which should be resolved. I submit, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to express some reasons why it should be resolved in the direction of a substantial increase in the amount of the federal grant to the disaster fund committee before this supply motion passes through this house.


Mr. Pritiie:: I should like, Mr. Chairman, to support the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. He did take the provincial government of British Columbia to task, and I think rightly so, for their great delay in this matter. I quite agree with the remarks he made as to how difficult it must be for the federal authorities to deal with the premier and government of this province. There was a very long delay before any official communication came from Victoria to Ottawa on this important matter.
However, despite that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is certainly not overstating the case at all when he says there is very great disappointment in British Columbia generally and in the Albernis particularly regarding the amount granted by the federal government. I do not have the figures before me, but with regard to the Hay river flood a year ago, in which case I realize no provincial government was concerned, and the very serious fire in Rimouski a few years ago, I believe the amounts by way of aid were much greater proportionately than the amount being given in the case of the tidal wave disaster in the Albernis.
The hon. member mentioned in the latter part of his remarks the need for a better method of handling disaster funds in this country, and I should like to dwell on that aspect for a few minutes. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and myself received a letter on this subject from the municipal council of Burnaby recently. I should like to quote some excerpts from that letter:
The public generally is being asked to subscribe to a disaster fund established to assist those unfortunate people who suffered damage and hardship from the effects of tidal waves along the west coast of Vancouver island, which occurred as a result of the recent Alaskan earthquake. The municipal council, while not unsympathetic to the plight of these people and the worthy cause involved, feels that there should be some different view taken of disaster area situations generally.
At the present time funds are solicited on a volunteer basis, and no measure of control is specifically exercised by any governmental agency and consequently disaster funds sometimes reach

proportions entirely out of true relationship with the purpose for which they are designed. An example in this country may be cited in Winnipeg where it is reported that a disaster fund was set up for flood victims some years ago and a fairly large sum in the order of $1 million still remains in the fund unexpended.
Farther on in the letter they have this to say:
As mentioned above, the council is not opposed to the principle of assistance to those affected in disaster areas, but is more concerned with the principle of control. It is felt that consideration might be given to the introduction of a system of control by government, similar to that in the United States where disaster areas are established under the jurisdiction of the government and assistance given according to competent judgment of the severity of the disaster.
The municipal council would seek the co-operation of the members of parliament in giving some consideration to the proposal of the council in this matter and would ask that investigations be made into the feasibility of such control measures being introduced by senior levels of government.
The Vancouver Sun supported this idea in an editorial on May 7 of this year. It is a two part editorial entitled "Slow Burn in the Albernis While Politicians Fiddle". The first part takes the provincial government to task for their delay, but the second part deals with the question of some type of national control of disaster funds, and I should like to quote it:
The delay In aid to the Albernis supports Burnaby reeve Alan Emmott's criticism of what he calls the hit and miss system of Canadian disaster aid. Mr. Emmott believes there should be a permanent relief fund in this country which could swing into action immediately it is needed. This seems most sensible.
The Americans can produce millions on a moment's notice. But in Canada federal aid, varying from 50 to 80 per cent of rehabilitation cost, must await the acceptance of the means test applied to affected provinces and municipalities. And public charity-even the $2 million or so surplus from the Fraser and Red river relief funds-simply moves too slowly to meet urgent need.
It is significant that none of the $300,000 collected so far by the west coast disaster fund-including the $50,000 pledged by the provincial government, the $25,000 from Victoria city and Vancouver's $10,000-has shown up yet in the Albernis.
This, I would add, was on May 7.
It is understandable that a full appraisal of damage is desirable before governments commit themselves to 100 per cent or even 80 per cent of rehabilitation costs. But surely the two senior levels of government could find a formula for setting up an emergency fund which could act as quickly as, say, the Red Cross. Such a fund could tide over victims while adjusters added up the precise dollars and cents. It could, for example, allow the distraught motel operators of the Albernis at least to put down payments on new furniture and fixtures.
The fact that no financial assistance of any kind has arrived in the Albernis to date shows that the Canadian disaster relief fund, set up by act of parliament in 1954, doesn't do the trick. This fund contains nearly $li million left over from public donations to the 1950 Red river fund.

But neither this money nor the surplus Fraser fund money can make victim's lives less miserable while tied up in the bank, while governments debate what's a national emergency and what isn't.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are two points I should like to make. I certainly hope the federal cabinet will, as requested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, reconsider the amount of money they have already donated. Second, I hope the cabinet will give consideration to the idea of setting up a national disaster fund which could act more quickly than is the case at the present time. There are many federal-provincial conferences these days, and this matter certainly should be the subject of a federal-provincial conference. It seems to me that such a plan as is necessary can be worked out so that we do not have these very long delays every time a civil disaster occurs.
{Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I just rise for a few minutes to answer a suggestion made yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he stated that in the event of a supply motion, the opposition might then air its views with regard to the national flag.
The supply motion is scheduled for Monday and Tuesday; we understand that the official opposition does not seem at all anxious to take this opportunity of discussing the matter of the national flag. To my mind, we have that opportunity today, and I believe that our views, on this side of the house, are well known. We favour a distinctive flag, but we do not want to embark upon a discussion on the design of that flag, because it would be endless. But we do want to give the house a chance of stating its views on this point, so as to encourage the Prime Minister to introduce as soon as possible his resolution on the national flag. We are availing ourselves of this opportunity to enable the house to express its views on this subject and thus facilitate the task of the Prime Minister and the cabinet.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the interim supply resolution. I simply suggest to include one sentence. Here is my amendment, in French and in English:
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger), that the following words be added to the interim supply resolution:
"This house considers that it is opportune to adopt as soon as possible a distinctive Canadian flag".
Mr. Chairman, that does not affect the budget at all. There is no increase in the expenditures. Neither is there a vote of noninterim Supply
confidence. It simply means that we take advantage of the circumstances that give us an opportunity to discuss any matter at all during such a period. Since we are permitted to discuss all sorts of matters, we are also allowed to introduce an amendment concerning the matter we wish to have discussed. That does not affect the budget in the least.
This amendment we are bringing forward is only the expression of a wish. We would like to have it accepted as such. It gives us an opportunity to make the Prime Minister aware of the fact that he will have our support and the support of all members of this house when the time comes to select a distinctive Canadian flag.
There is no reference in this amendment to a specific design, but simply to the principle of a distinctive Canadian flag.
That is why we, of the Ralliement Creditiste take this first opportunity to show the government-we also hope that all the members of the party in power will therefore give us their support-that we support them and that the house also supports the decision to adopt a distinctive flag for Canada.


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe moves that the following words be added to the interim supply resolution:
This house considers it is opportune to adopt as soon as possible a distinctive Canadian flag.

The hon. member for Lapointe moves that the following words be added to the interim supply resolution:
This house considers it is opportune to adopt as soon as possible a distinctive Canadian flag.
Is there any hon. member who would like to offer views regarding the legality of the proposed amendment?


Mr. Lambert:: I think it is quite obvious that a reading of the most elementary rules of the house would indicate that this amendment goes away beyond the ambit of the resolution, which is one dealing with interim supply and the voting of certain credits to the government. The amendment, dealing with the subject matter of a flag, is as different as day to night, when applied to the resolution. It enlarges the ambit of the resolution and that is not permitted to an hon. member. I would therefore submit the amendment is wholly out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that one has only to read the standing orders of the house to realize that our amendment is not in order, but he has not mentioned any standing order which says that this amendment is against the rules-

Interim Supply


Mr. Lamberi:: One does not have to do that.


Gilles Grégoire: When someone rises on a point of order at large, it just means that no specific standing order deals with that point.
Now, I would have the committee note that interim supply calls for the vote of one twelfth of all items in the main estimates. So, it has to do with the Department of the Secretary of State, the privy council and the administration of the various departments. Furthermore, the national flag comes under the whole cabinet. There is no expense involved. The opposition must' not introduce an amendment which increases the budget expenditures; now, this amendment constitutes a hope which is not against the wishes of the cabinet and does not increase interim supply as far as those departments are concerned, especially the expenses of the privy council, for which this supply provides some expense items.
That is why I submit that the motion is entirely in order and that no standing order is against it.


Lucien Lamoureux: If there are no further
arguments to be submitted at this time, I believe the Chair can rule on the legality of the proposed amendment. I would have to go along with the hon. member for Edmonton West when he suggests that the amendment goes beyond the ambit of the resolution now before the committee.
I would like to refer the hon. member for Lapointe to May's sixteenth edition, at page 421, where it is stated:
-no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant, if moved as an amendment, and an amendment cannot be used for importing arguments which would be irrelevant to the main question.
Inasmuch as the proposition brought forward by the hon. member for Lapointe is beyond the ambit of the resolution before the committee, I submit it is irrelevant. I think I should also mention to the hon. member that in my opinion this is really a substantive motion which requires 48 hours' notice. A third argument is that this proposition anticipates Bill No. C-64, which is on the order paper. For these reasons I respectfully suggest that the proposed amendment is out of order.
[Translation\


Gilles Grégoire: Naturally, Mr. Chairman, you have given your ruling on the amendment we brought forward. You referred to Bill No. C-64, which is on the order paper at this time and has to do with a flag. What we are asking for is not necessarily based on that. We are merely asking the house to consider the advisability of adopting it as soon

as possible. That does not necessarily mean today. Furthermore, we feel that this-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -that this is within the ambit of the discussion and is in no way irrelevant.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member will recognize that the ruling given by the Chair may not be discussed. I would remind him that the decision I have just given was based not on one argument only, but three. In my opinion, each of those three arguments was reason enough to rule the proposed amendment out of order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I would like not to have to rise again but I believe the matter I raised earlier is of sufficient importance to warrant some sort of reply from the government. Inasmuch as it involved the President of the Privy Council who, I understand, is chairman of treasury board, and the Minister of Finance, both of whom must have taken part in the discussions that led up to the cabinet decision, either or both these hon. gentlemen should be prepared to give the committee some indication, in greater detail than we have been given before, of the thinking of the government in arriving at this decision, and some indication that the cabinet is prepared to reconsider the matter.
I raised this question with the Prime Minister on Tuesday, following his week end trip. I am willing to concede that there had not been too much opportunity over the week end for the Prime Minister to call the cabinet together to reconsider this matter, as he indicated earlier to the Leader of the Opposition that he would do.
So far as the people in my constituency are concerned, it is a question not only of their immediate loss but one that goes deeper than that. It is one which involves their faith in Canada, in the government of Canada, and in what it means to be a Canadian citizen. As the member for that constituency who has tried to give this chamber some indication of the outlook and general attitude of the people of that area towards pride in Canada, I can say it is a question that goes to the root of their outlook, attitude and support of the whole Canadian idea. To me that is an even more fundamental consideration than the exact design of a particular symbol or emblem which may be raised in various places in our country.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond raised a matter of considerable importance. The difficulty in this case arises out of the requirement that

somehow the federal government, under our constitution, reconciled a desire to help a segment of the population who suffered a very severe disaster. Without question, this was a very serious disaster to those who were involved. However, responsibility has to be exercised, in the knowledge that under our constitutional arrangements the provinces have direct and immediate responsibility for the municipalities-indeed, the municipalities are creations of the provinces. I think that a few years ago the position was always firmly taken that it is only when a province was unable, by reason of the extent of the disaster, to finance the relief which needed to be supplied, that anything could be given. That was the original position. I know there have been variations in more recent years, but I mention this so that we may get this matter into perspective.
Something was said of the Hay River disaster. The criteria which apply in this case, however, are different and I do not think the example is particularly relevant to our discussion since, of course, Hay River is in the Northwest Territories and no provincial government is involved. Nor would it be suggested, I imagine by any hon. member, that it is beyond the capacity of the provincial government concerned to handle the relief measures necessary in the case of this particular disaster. The Alberni situation has to be resolved in this context. Bearing these considerations in mind, and not having in its possession details of the damage, the government decided that notwithstanding what I have said it should make a contribution toward helping these unfortunate people. And it made a contribution of a quarter of a million dollars-or, at least, it indicated it would make a contribution of that amount.
I believe in light of the circumstances this reflected a responsible treatment of the subject, whether or not one thinks the particular amount was large enough. That is a point which could be discussed at great length because any amount so given is not arrived at on the basis of a precise formula.
Hon. members suggested the sum was not large enough but, as I listened attentively to their comments, I received the impression that their reason for believing it was not large enough did not represent an objective approach on their part but, rather, that it reflected a feeling that the province had not acted as they would have wished it to act in such a situation. In any event-and I do not wish to interpret their remarks-they were critical of the way in which the province had handled the situation. I do not wish to join in that criticism for the reason that whatever I may think of the way in which
Interim Supply
the province handled the situation, the fact remains that this is a provincial responsibility, and I do not think it is for federal members of parliament to criticize the methods used by provinces in dealing with matters which lie within provincial jurisdiction.
Hon. members then raised another question which I regard as being altogether separate, though related closely enough to allow it properly to be raised in the circumstances. It concerns procedure for a national disaster fund-and those were the precise words used as I noted them down. This raises a matter which perhaps should be taken into consideration so that on some suitable occasion the establishment of some kind of criteria to be made applicable in these cases could be worked out between the provinces and the federal authorities, to the end that in the event of a disaster the municipalities or the local areas themselves would have reason to know what tests were likely to be applied and how they would be applied. The authorities, both federal and provincial, would, in turn, know in what circumstances they would be expected to contribute and the amounts they were expected to make available. This suggestion is certainly one I would wish to consider.
Perhaps there is not a great deal more I can say about it at the moment because this is obviously a proposition which would have to be considered by the government, and when the government had reached a decision on it the whole matter would have to be taken up with the provinces on a suitable occasion. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised this question on several occasions on the orders of the day and he has obtained replies from the Prime Minister. I do not know that I could usefully add to those replies. I think it would not be helpful for me to attempt to enlarge on them, other than to say, in connection with the second point which the hon. member raised, that I will undertake to consider the matter and have it given attention.
I regret that in all these cases it is difficult to know what kind of contribution to make. The hon. member read headlines from newspapers as to the inadequacies of the grant made. I cannot help saying that I do not recall at any time in my political life ever seeing a headline in any newspaper applauding an increase in taxation imposed in order to enlarge any of these grants. It is, after all, a matter of acting reasonably and responsibly in determining what is a proper contribution to make, and it is well, when considering these matters, to bear in mind that the generosity desired by most people in arriving at all these contributions would inevitably mean appropriate legislation to increase taxes-because, of

Interim Supply
course, revenue does come out of taxes. It is a matter of using a balanced judgment in all the circumstances and of reaching a decision as best one can.
I can assure the hon. member that this Alberni situation did receive, as I well know, long and careful consideration and that all the factors entering into a decision were carefully thought out and discussed at some length. There has been no attempt to minimize the significance of the loss to the persons concerned-I think 55 families lost their homes. In any event, the matter was carefully considered and the best conclusion which could be reached was that the sum of $250,000 was appropriate in all the circumstances, bearing in mind the degree of responsibility of the federal government. It is a matter of regret that it was not sufficiently large to be satisfactory to hon. members and to the persons in that area.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I certainly did not intend to imply in the course of my remarks that newspaper headlines always give a fair summary of the feeling in the country on various issues. I did something which I do not ordinarily do. I quoted these headlines and said at the time that I was doing so because I felt they did accurately summarize the reaction. I drew attention to them because, as I had said earlier, this is not the ordinary reaction of Canadian citizens when a grant is made from the federal treasury.
With regard to what the minister had to say about increasing taxes, this is one of the axioms which I believe all members of this house realize and accept. But I should like to point out, if this has not already been drawn to the attention of the minister and the committee, that in effect if funds are provided for purposes of re-establishment and reconstruction it is simply using our taxing mechanism for providing a pool against loss, because the loss figures which were released following the appraisal are based upon the loss that was uninsurable. I have gone into this matter and it becomes apparent that a disaster such as a tidal wave, because it is a risk that will affect only people in certain limited areas of the country, is not something which in the ordinary way insurance companies would insure against, except through charging absolutely prohibitive premiums. Therefore I do not think that the minister's argument in respect to the increase of taxes, and so on, to deal with this kind of situation is really applicable in this case.
I certainly was not inviting the minister to comment upon or to agree or disagree with my own assessment of the actions of the government of the province of British

Columbia. I felt free to make my own assessment because, after all, I am a citizen of British Columbia and have a vote in provincial elections, in addition to being a representative of the people of that particular area of the province. What I was trying to do in making that assessment was draw to the attention of the government and the house that there did in fact exist a gap in the finances available for dealing with this disaster situation, and I felt I should offer my own explanation, on my own responsibility, as to some of the reasons for the existence of that gap.
What I was trying to point out was that in view of the long period of uncertainty which these people have had, I was convinced that the more proper and appropriate thing for the government to have done would have been to make a grant on a scale that was sufficient to close that gap, and then follow through with dealing expeditiously with some more satisfactory and better established arrangements for future situations.
I was glad to hear the President of the Privy Council express to the committee his interest in taking action along those lines; but I still maintain-and I think members of the house will appreciate my position-that assurances of that kind are not really very helpful in dealing with the problem that is immediately facing these people, who are receiving considerably less than the net depreciated value of their loss, let alone any consideration toward receiving something that bears a proper relationship to replacement costs in this situation.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to give you a little assistance. Earlier, when the motion of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) was ruled out of order, three reasons were given, one of which was the fact that Bill No. C-64 was now figuring on the order paper. However, I see that Bill No. C-64 is an act to provide for a Canadian national anthem, while Bill No. C-41 is an act respecting a national flag and a national anthem of Canada. The latter would have been a better argument than the former. [Text]


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Peters:: Before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, I would like to avail myself of the opportunity of saying something about the business and the operation of the house. An editorial appeared the other day in the Montreal Gazette under the heading, "Better house management needed". It went on to speak of the presentation made by the Prime

Minister on May 15. I think some parts of this editorial are worth considering. It said:
The House of Commons did not look at its best when Prime Minister Pearson announced the 20 pieces of legislation that must he passed before the summer recess, and many members of the house laughed at him.
To some extent all this is due to the government's minority position and the restive mood of a house that is not disposed to allow the government to forget its thin hold on power. But there is more to it than this. The trouble also comes from the fact that the business of the house, the amount and order of legislation, is not being frankly worked out between the government and the opposition.
It goes on to say:
The need for a frank understanding between government and opposition would not in any way limit the freedom of criticism and debate. It is, rather, a matter of the proper management of business.
I recommend the whole editorial to all members of the house. I think the Prime Minister was being unfair and rather stupid in introducing the amount of legislation he did introduce in the way that he did, if he honestly and with any integrity expected the house to pass this legislation before having any recess this summer. I think that we in Canada should start looking at improving the affairs of government, and one of the major ways of doing this is by dividing the session off in accordance with the arrangements they use in the United Kingdom, where they divide the financial section of the session and the legislation section of the session. As most hon. members will know, this was done a long time ago, because they encountered the same problem that faces us, namely that you cannot mix the budget resolutions and the throne speech legislation and try to deal with them at the same time and expect to accomplish very much with either.
No one in this chamber has ever gone to a meeting run by any organization which had any understanding at all of the operation of an organization-certainly this has been the experience of anyone who has attended meetings on a regular basis-where an agenda had not been prepared and it was decided that there would be a limited, and only a limited, amount of new business introduced in that agenda. The agenda is presented; those present at the meeting are asked to approve, add to or delete from the agenda, and the agenda is adopted. That is the way the business is carried out.
I have just looked over the number of things the Prime Minister suggested had to be passed. I have totalled them up. I may be out one or two, but I totalled 35 items. I do not know when his week end is going to come, but if he does not run the house better than it appears to be run at the moment he can count on that week end some time very late in the
Interim Supply
fall, because members of parliament are already taking their holidays and would be quite happy to see that he has the opportunity to stay here during July and August if he wishes to do that.
I have read the list. Some of these measures are important; some of them have been put off by us for five years, and I do not understand how he thinks we are going to pass them all of a sudden. Some of them are just wishes; some of them are just election promises; some of them have great priority and should be discussed-but I think it is very unfair, unrealistic, and is a very poor way to run a government if we are going to continue to hold a gun to the heads of members of parliament every time a period arises when we normally expect to have some recess, and this type of situation is put before us. There is not a member in this house who has not decided in the last two or three years that this is a full-time job, that we have an obligation to be here almost the year round. There is, except for elections, a limited period of time in which a member is able to visit his constituency and make a complete tour of his area.
I think we should decide now when that period will be. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that it does not satisfy me to have a recess some time during the winter, when I come from northern Ontario. It is neither handy for me nor advantageous to my constituents. In the rural areas we may sit around a stove while we discuss particular problems, but I think it is much better if they were discussed out in the fields with the sun pouring down, giving a guy a break from his haying or harvesting.
We should also give consideration to the interests of members of parliament with families and young children. If this is done we will find that the best time for a holiday will be somewhere around July and August. If this holiday period could extend to some six or eight weeks I think the date should be set for July 1 to end of August, and that this decision should be taken now.
What would this decision mean, Mr. Chairman? It would mean that the government would have immediately to consult with the other members of parliament, or if they do not wish to do that they would have to publish-perhaps this is by far the best method- a list, a really honest list, as to the things it is desirable to accomplish. This list could be made available to the press, if they want to do it in other ways than in the past; and then it will rest on the shoulders of every member of parliament, no matter from which party or quarter of the house he may come, to give his co-operation and achieve the result desired within a reasonable length of

Interim Supply
time. There will always be, of course, I think everyone will admit, occasions when certain matters arise, such as that which arose at the Easter recess or during the Cyprus crisis, and attention must be directed to them. I think every hon. member is adult enough to take this into consideration, and our rules and regulations must therefore make way for this type of emergency.
I am very pleased at some of the changes which are being made, and I think members of parliament are to be congratulated on their willingness to make them, particularly when the government does not seem in any way willing to co-operate or to make concessions. When an individual member of parliament makes a concession which the government does not, I think the newspapers could do the country a service by pointing out that the government is being irresponsible in taking such an attitude. Let me take an example. We play with estimates every Friday afternoon. I do not know why estimates are brought forward on Friday afternoons. Perhaps it is because cabinet ministers want to go away and decide that it is "Joe's" turn today. The government have not a chance in Hades of getting estimates passed on Friday afternoons, and they know it. I do not profess to be an expert on any subject, but I do not think it would be difficult for me to speak on the subject of, say, external affairs. All I would need to do is to read the newspaper and every Friday afternoon I could rise and make a speech on what I had read during the week about external affairs. But I think this would be difficult to do over a period of two or three days. My suggestion is that the government is being irresponsible in bringing forward estimates every Friday rather than concentrating on the legislation which they declare should have priority before the summer recess, and hammering away at such legislation until it is passed.
One of the major legislative items is redistribution. There is no question that the Conservative party has decided that redistribution is very important to them and is going to be fully discussed-and I think they have the right to discuss it. On the other hand, I think the government also have the right to expect this measure eventually to be passed. I suggest that the only way they can pass this measure is to bring it forward with whatever priority they wish to give it, state frankly their position to the house and the need for the legislation, and then leave it up to the responsibility of every hon. member in his own conscience to make his decision about it. I think the government shirks its responsibility in failing to do this.

You will also be interested to note, Mr. Chairman, in looking over the 35 pieces of legislation which have been announced that there is no reference to a new flag. This was not considered. There are also many other items which I am sure the Prime Minister, if he were honest, would admit he has not a hope in Hades of getting through by September, even if we were to sit here June, July and August. I think the legislation listed is extensive enough, but all 35 items could not possibly be passed before the recess. I have seen some of them on the order paper for two years now and I do not think they will pass even at this session.
I was pleased to hear that the committee on procedure was able to make recommendations far reaching in scope and consented to by all members of the house, as I understand it. After discussing them in caucus there was general agreement with them. But I ask you, Mr. Chairman, did the Prime Minister sit in at his caucus when they were discussed, and did he agree that these concessions were of some value to him? What is the Prime Minister and the government willing to offer us? Too many times members of the press will say that a certain member of parliament, who is doing something they do not like, is holding up legislation. I noted a very amusing occurrence the other day where a long list of remarks made during another debate was unrolled so as to highlight the fact that there had been considerable discussion in a particular field. But have the press asked the government what it wants to accomplish this session, or what it wants to accomplish before the recess, and when the recess will be?
I was accused, Mr. Chairman, of having had some interest in the situation which developed at Easter. I would inform the house now that I also have some interest in developing a situation relating to our summer recess. I have always been offended by the fact that the government are able to hold to the head of an individual member the threat of losing his holiday at the expense of what he considers the interests of his constituents. Since I have been a member of this house there has never yet been an occasion when just before a recess, whether it be for one day, one week, a summer recess or the end of the session, the government did not bring in a number of items of legislation which were not expected to pass prior to the offer of a vacation which, it is suggested, should be given speedy consideration.
I think this is unfair and that the House of Commons and the people of Canada have a right to know the government's agenda for the session, both in the legislative and in the

financial field. We are aware that estimates are increasing year by year and that there is need to separate them from our legislative considerations. I think the government would be much more fair if they were willing to disclose what items they wanted passed-they could certainly count on my co-operation and on the co-operation of this party-and allow us to give consideration to what we consider to be our priorities in relation thereto.
In the list of 35 measures, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of items of extreme importance to my constituency. They are of importance to some segments of the economy in my constituency. There are others which do not bear that importance as far as my constituents are concerned. I believe I have an obligation and a right to press for the needs and requirements of my constituents. I should have the right, Mr. Chairman, as a member of parliament, to know to which of these items I should give preference in the allocation of the time to which I consider I am entitled.
I believe the government should be willing to set a date for such things as the Easter holiday, and say we are going to have a holiday. Anyone can check back, Mr. Chairman, and ascertain that we were not much farther ahead after Easter than we were before Easter. We had accomplished very little in terms of legislation or estimates. I am sure that the objection of every member to having something rammed down his throat will be apparent. You will find that after two months of what would be normally our summer recess we will not have accomplished very much in terms of legislation with regard to these 35 items. Hon. members should be informed of the government's intention with regard to a summer recess, and what the government's preference is in connection with legislation it hopes to get through before that time.
I agree with the Prime Minister that there are things that should be presented and passed. However, when he throws in this flag issue and says the government will stake its future on it, and implies that there may be an election, then I think he is being unfair and is not giving preference to any of the 35 items he listed. These items cannot matter very much if he is willing to postpone them for six or eight months in order to have an election.
We are talking about the government, but I am not sure really who the government is. I would think it is a very small number of people in the cabinet. I do not believe it includes all the cabinet. I have sat in opposition with some of these government members, I have been their colleague in years gone by, and I have found most of them to be reasonable. I am sure these people did not decide that these 35 items 20220-219
Interim, Supply
would have to be passed before a decision could be reached about a summer recess. I just wonder who the government is. Is it only the Prime Minister who sits in his little ivory tower and decides what he wants to get done, decides what the preference shall be, just as he now decides what the flag should be? Is this what government by the Liberal party means? After all, the Liberal party was elected on the fact they had a team and they were going to be able to work things out administratively. They had better get started because they have not given much indication so far that they are a team.
Every member of this house has a responsibility. Their responsibilities vary according to whether they sit on the government side or the opposition side. I think it would be foolish for 265 members of parliament to sit here and not be able to come to a decision on what constitutes a year's work. We know that in the United Kingdom if the work of parliament is not finished by a certain time they automatically start a new session. The old session may end today and a new one may start tomorrow. However, they do decide that there will be a time at which this may happen. I feel that the business of parliament has grown from the time when a session used to be three or four months in length, and being a member of parliament is now a full-time proposition.
I cannot see how the newspapers of this country are going to be able to blame members of parliament for poor management if the government itself cannot make a decision and provide parliament and the country with an agenda for the orderly conduct of business. I strongly urge the house leader to give full consideration to what business he believes should have priority before a summer recess which, in my opinion, should begin on the first of July. Certainly, he should give consideration to the possibility of completing the important legislation the government may bring before us before dealing with the estimates. I strongly urge consideration of this matter. There will probably be two months taken up in trying to convince the government that this course is going to be followed in the future. However, this course is going to be followed because I feel that the -matter is important enough to warrant following it. I do not believe the government will find the house unreasonable, if the government is fair and straightforward with the house. I hope that tomorrow the Prime Minister will announce that he expects parliament to recess for the months of July and August, and that certain legislation must be passed before we recess.

Interim Supply
We all remember what happened in connection with the $50 million needed for the unemployment insurance fund. Hon. members are not unreasonable when the needs are presented to them. Except for the possibility of an emergency, I hope the Prime Minister will inform the house we will recess on a certain date and return on a certain date, and that this possibility will not hinge on the passage of these 35 items.


Robert William Prittie: The hon. member for Timis-kaming has brought up some very important points, I believe. He has expressed the feelings of many private members in this house. There are many ways of expediting business, and if the Prime Minister wants that hatful of legislation passed, I think means will have to be found other than we have been able to find so far. I do not believe the committees system is being used as it should be. This complaint has been expressed by many of the new government backbenchers.
So far in this session we have not had departmental estimates referred to any of the committees. It seems to me that before much longer estimates such as those of the Department of Veterans Affairs should be referred to the veterans affairs committee, which could be working on them. The estimates of the Department of Fisheries could go to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. The committee which looked over the reports of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines has not been called into session as yet, and this is something we must do before the session ends. All of these committees should be used, and used immediately. Not all the departmental estimates can be referred to the committees, but many of them can be. So far we have just had three committees working, namely the external affairs committee dealing with the Columbia river treaty, the committee on privileges and elections and the committee looking after the rules. I think if we subdivided some of the work and got it out of the house into committee, we would make more progress.
I like the idea presented by the hon. member for Timiskaming concerning some regularity of sessions. Being a member of parliament is a full-time occupation now. In the United Kingdom they say that at certain times of the year the house will sit and other times it will not. I suspect one of the real problems in this whole situation is that there are some people on the government side and some people in the official opposition who do not want the house to function. It seems to me that some members of the official opposition want an election so that their leader will get one more chance to be prime minister. I am sure that

many of the advisers of the Prime Minister believe the government should just drift along for a while and then go for a fall election in order to get the majority they need. This is very nice for them, but it does not get the business of the country done. They would like to have an election so that some of these minor parties would be out of the way. I believe if an election is held we will still be around to bother them.
The important thing, I believe, is not to talk about a fall election but to get the business done as soon as possible.


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

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

["Order.\nIt being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.\n20220-219*"]
George James McIlraith: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1965, the sum of $338,136,717.59 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllraith thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-99, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Account to be rendered.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1965, the sum of $338,136,717.59 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.']
Norman Platt Lambert: Before the schedules carry would the President of the Privy Council give the house the assurance that the bill is in its usual form and that all items included therein will be subject to deliberation at the appropriate time?


George James McIlraith: Yes, as I indicated at the resolution stage I am happy to give that undertaking and I hereby give the formal undertaking that all such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this interim supply bill. I refer to the right to discuss individual items of the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Schedules A to D inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.

Transport Act PRIVATE BILLS
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
['Yes, as I indicated at the resolution stage I am happy to give that undertaking and I hereby give the formal undertaking that all such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this interim supply bill. I refer to the right to discuss individual items of the estimates.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


George James McIlraith: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-98, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we are in a rather strange situation because the only copy of the bill given us is in French. Usually when copies of bills reach us in one language only, we get the English copy.
We note today, with some pleasure, that this time we have only the French copy.

I would ask the minister to advise us whether the period of 60 sitting days will be as of the 1st of July, 1965 or from what particular date. Other than that I have no further comments to add to those which were made by my colleague, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Now-lan), at the resolution stage.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not continuing this discussion in the French language but I did notice-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, should you not announce to the house what the effect will be if the minister speaks now?


Mr.   Ballen@Acting Speaker: I must advise the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is five o'clock?


Mr.   Ballen@Acting Speaker: Order.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.
20220-219*


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-5, respecting The General Council of the Canadian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association-Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, If I could have unanimous consent I would request that you call item No. 31, the second reading of Bill No. C-60, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (captive sales financing).
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Ballen): In order for this bill to be proceeded with now there will have to be unanimous consent. Does the house give unanimous consent to proceed with Bill No. C-60 at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-60, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (captive sales financing).


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I would move,
seconded by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet), that this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the select committee on consumer credit for further consideration.
Motion (Mr. MacNaught) agreed to.



TRANSPORT


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: the second reading of Bill No. C-29, to amend the Transport Act and the Hailway Act (B.C. water carriers).
.	>
ni-io jo me inira
occasion over a period of years on which I have moved second reading of a bill on this subject matter. Perhaps I might explain the purpose of the bill by a brief reference to the explanatory notes in which it is statedby^S*
Columbia coastal waters by1 puttine6 th" Bntish board of transport Jurisdiction*^ ^ Under
Perhaps I might explain the purpose of the bill a bit further by making reference to the terms of part II of the Transport Act as it

Transport Act
is set out in chapter 271 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, which deals with the matter of transport by water. Section 10 of the act states:
The board-
-that is the board of transport commissioners-
-may, subject to the provisions of this part-
-that is, part II of the Transport Act- -license ships to transport passengers or goods or both passengers and goods from a port or place in Canada to another port or place in Canada.
Section 11 (1) states:
No goods or passengers shall be transported by water, from one port or place in Canada to another port or place in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port or for any part of the transport, by means of any ship other than a ship licensed under this part.
The particular section of the bill which it is my proposal to amend is section 12, which in effect is an exempting section. Section 12 (2) says:
The governor in council may by regulation exempt any ship or class of ships from the operation of this part.
Section 12 (3) is quite specific in its terms and says:
The provisions of this part do not apply to the transport of goods in bulk in waters other than the Mackenzie river.
Then there is a further exempting provision in subsection 4 which says:
The provisions of this part do not apply in the case of ships engaged in the transport of goods or passengers
(a) between ports or places in British Columbia-
The net effect and the main purpose of my bill, apart from some consequential amendments to the Railway Act, are to remove from that exempting section of the Transport Act the phrase "between ports or places in British Columbia."
I would like to point out that though I introduced this idea to the house for the first time in the form of a bill in 1956, that was not the first occasion on which the subject matter of the bill had been discussed in the house.
The main provisions of the present transport legislation date back to 1938 and the act in its present form, basically, was introduced to this house by the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe who at that time was minister of transport. I remember pointing out on the first occasion on which I introduced this subject for the consideration of the house that when the measure was up for initial consideration in that year the very subsection to which I then referred, and which I now seek to have eliminated, was discussed at considerable length by the then hon. member for Comox-Albemi, Mr. A. W. Neill who, as 
may be remembered, sat for many years in this house as an independent member representing the constituency which I now represent. Mr. Neill was at that time greatly concerned about this particular subsection, and the records show that when the bill was originally before the house in committee he sought, by motion, to have this particular provision deleted. I pointed out to the house in 1956 that while it was quite conceivable that one member from Comox-Alberni could be wrong in the conclusions he had reached as to the necessity for the deletion of this subsection, it was hardly likely that two of them would be in error in this regard, particularly when their conclusions had been arrived at on different occasions separated by a considerable period of years. So I feel I must be presenting to this house an idea worthy of favourable consideration.
It is true, and I think it should not be overlooked, that during the period which has elapsed since Mr. A. W. Neill first objected to this provision, a veritable revolution has taken place in the transportation pattern in coastal areas of British Columbia. It is true that those parts of the province which were then affected by the need for water transport still depend, by and large, upon the same means of conveyance. In the intervening years there has been some development of roads and highways along the coast, though not as great as one might suppose. But there has been a startling development in the field of air travel. Whereas in earlier years when this subject was before the house the only mode of travel up and down the coast was, almost without exception, by coastal vessel, today the bulk of those travelling back and forth from the various centres along the coast, and particularly from the areas north of the parts ordinarily referred to as the lower mainland and southern Vancouver island, travel by air.
One of the results of the development of air travel has, of course, been a drastic alteration in the whole pattern of travel by steamer. A great many of the steamer runs which had been known for years along the coast as well established runs have disappeared. One of them, and perhaps the best known, partly because of the number of summer tourists who patronized it, was the run of the famous steamer Maquinna along the west coast of Vancouver island. But the old and well known steamers of the former Union Steamship Company which used to sail the coast in a regular way for years have also disappeared entirely from the picture.
There has also been a marked change in the pattern of handling goods or freight. A great deal of the freight which is now carried up and down the coast is carried by

barges rather than by the more familiar types of coastal steamer. In recent years a further development has taken place, one which I think should not be overlooked in any consideration of the pattern of travel on the Pacific coast. I have in mind the development of a publicly owned ferry system under the aegis of the provincial government of British Columbia. I should like to point out at once that it is my understanding that the operation of this publicly owned ferry system would not be covered by the terms of the bill I am now proposing. In other words, provision for licensing by the board of transport commissioners would not apply in the case of provinciallv-owned vessels.
I submit that in spite of the many changes which have taken place in the field of travel and which I have attempted, briefly, to outline, there is a continuing need for some form of orderly regulation of transportation by water on the west coast. I should like to point out that water transportation on the west coast of Canada is almost the only aspect of public transportation, as far as I know, in this country which is not governed by some form of public regulation and control. It is the only area of transportation where the people who use it have no right of any kind to appeal to a public body for redress if their interests have been adversely affected. There is no place where they can go to raise any question with regard to the tariffs, fares or freight rates they are charged. They have no means of ensuring whether a particular service will continue to run or cease to run. Moreover, there is no means of protection for those who operate a service so as to ensure that a dozen other people may not suddenly decide to institute a parallel service, with the result that they might all go bankrupt and, in the end, no service would be provided.
From time to time in this house I listen to considerable discussion on the subject of railway branch line abandonment proposals in certain parts of the country. As I listen to such discussions I sometimes wonder what the situation would be in the rest of Canada, and in the prairie provinces in particular, if the transport companies concerned had complete freedom to tear up railway lines or to discontinue passenger services here and freight runs there, unanswerable to any public control or authority and without regard to any of the results which might follow from such actions. Undoubtedly, of course, one of the results might be to bring about some shortening of the length of discussions that take place in this house. But I would like to point out that this is precisely the situation which has faced the people who live in the coastal area of British Columbia all through these
Transport Act
years. In my view, Mr. Speaker, that is why the late Mr. A. W. Neill, when he represented a constituency which does cover a very large and important part of that coast, pressed this point in the interests of the people who lived in the coastal communities.
I think this matter is perhaps becoming more important, even though there may not be as many steamer runs affected now as was the case some years ago. I feel that one of the reasons it is becoming more important arises in part out of the development of the provincially owned ferry system in British Columbia, because as matters stand the provincial government, without any other reference, can institute runs and in fact has plans at the present time, according to announcements that we have read in the press, for introducing new ferry runs such as the one that has been proposed to follow what is becoming known as the route of the Haidas, from the northern part of Vancouver island through to Prince Rupert. They can do this without any reference to the general pattern of transportation and the effects their actions may have on it. Of course, the actions of the provincial government in the field of highway development can very drastically alter the requirements as far as travel by water is concerned. In addition to that there is a great deal of confusion as to what is the present policy in the matter of subventions for the maintenance of certain runs to the more isolated areas, when they are required. Confusion exists as to what areas of responsibility in this field lie between the federal and provincial authorities. I could go into the details of particular examples, Mr. Speaker, if I wished to take the time of the house to do that.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that in this situation it is perhaps more necessary than ever, at least for the matter of the protection of the existing operations and the existing lines, that they be brought under the orderly regulation that applies in other transportation fields, whether they be railways under federal jurisdiction or bus lines operating under the jurisdictions of provincial public utility commissions. If the provisions set out in my bill were adopted, it would mean that a realistic appraisal of this whole situation could be made and it would have the responsibility of being made by a public body set up by parliament, namely the board of transport commissioners. The question of subventions, where they were required, could be properly dealt with as part of the general pattern of establishing adequate transportation by water to supplement the other forms of transportation as they come into existence from time to time.

Transport Act
The whole problem along the coast of British Columbia has been different in many ways from that in any other part of Canada.
I know that in years past various operators of various steamship lines in that part of Canada have objected to being brought under any form of public regulation or control.
I have always been rather at a loss to understand their reasoning in this situation, because it seems to me that in the field of transportation, where quite high capital commitments are involved in the establishment of adequate services, those who proceed to make that kind of investment should require and be entitled to some reasonable form of protection for their investment, so that once having established a run, provided they continue to give good service in accordance with public convenience and necessity, they would be able to carry on their business on a satisfactory basis and under an arrangement which would mean that their fare structure and freight structure would have some reasonable relationship to the costs of transporting goods to the consumer which apply in various other parts of the country.
The provisions of the Transport Act in the regulation of water carriers, and the way it is set out, basically apply only to the inland waters of the great lakes and the St. Lawrence system. There is another exempting section here which makes it non-applicable to coastal transportation on the Atlantic coast, but I would like to point out to the house that on the Atlantic coast the situation is completely different, for at least two reasons. One is that because of the multiplicity of small provinces on the Atlantic coast-that is, small geographically-the federal responsibility for interprovincial traffic enters into the picture; second, the publicly owned railway in Canada, partly under the terms of union with Newfoundland but in other fields in addition to that, has accepted a responsibility for the maintenance of a reasonable pattern of coastal steamer traffic on that part of the continent.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this situation in British Columbia is peculiar and for that reason I have confined the terms of my bill purely to that situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one more sentence, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was a little after ten minutes past five when I was allowed to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was going to say, in conclusion, that I have tried to present my argument for the basic purpose of the bill,

but I realize there are a good many technical complications in this field. As far as I am concerned, it is the kind of subject that could appropriately be considered by a standing committee of the house, and I would be more than happy to see this bill, after acceptance in principle on second reading, go to the appropriate standing committee of the house for detailed consideration.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, for the last 20 minutes I have listened with a great deal of interest indeed to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) because, coming from the Pacific coast and representing a Pacific coast riding, I am aware, as he is, of the great importance of the inland waterway which serves the province of British Columbia, a considerable portion of the state of Washington, and stretches northward to the southern borders of Alaska. You may start below Seattle and sail northward for 1,000 miles on an inland waterway which comes upon the open sea only once for a brief time in that whole passage.
This great waterway is full of marine traffic to the extent that you are hardly ever during the whole voyage out of sight of another vessel of some kind ploughing up and down these inland passages. Moreover, this traffic not only covers the coast line itself, but the indented fiords along the coast, running many miles inland, reaching lumber camps, pulp and paper mills, fish canneries, Indian villages, and other settlements steadily growing and increasing in importance up and down the coast of British Columbia. This is a scene of which my hon. friend is well aware, and he, like myself and other members from British Columbia, is well aware how important is the domestic traffic on these great inland waterways to the people of British Columbia and to much of its commerce.
To give the house some idea of the extent of the traffic which moves along inland waterways, I should like to refer to a supplement to the 1963 annual report of the national harbours board which contains some interesting figures on this question. Turning to the figures for the port of Vancouver, the total domestic cargo tonnage for 1959-I am eliminating foreign cargo tonnage because we are discussing in this bill inland traffic, not overseas traffic-was 4,900,000 tons, or in round figures 5 million tons. In 1963 it had increased 2 million tons to a figure of approximately 7 million tons. That is the total inward and outward domestic tonnage.
If I may compare that 7 million tons of domestic traffic with the traffic in and out of the port of Montreal, in 1959 the figure was 7,700,000 tons approximately, and by 1963

it had moved up to 9,300,000 tons. Therefore the domestic traffic in and out of Vancouver compares very favourably, with a ratio of approximately seven to nine, with the port of Montreal, which gives some indication to the house of the extensive traffic which plies our inland coastal waters.
I want to turn for a moment to the figures for the port of Vancouver for passenger traffic, because my hon. friend mentioned them when discussing the shift in coastal traffic by vessels in the inland waters. I refer to these figures because this is a matter of considerable importance in plotting how traffic should be governed in the future under legislation such as that suggested by my hon. friend today.
In 1959 coast wise traffic in total numbers of passengers, again excluding foreign traffic, taking both landings and embarkations into consideration, amounted to 1,000,183. This number declined steadily until in 1963-and this figure is hardly believable-the number of passengers was down to 198,000. Some of that drop from 1,000,183 to 198,000 had to do with some changes in ferry service and the withdrawal of some of the old ferry services between Vancouver, Nanaimo and Victoria. But, as my hon. friend conceded, there has been a very marked decline indeed in coast wise passenger movements.
There has also been a comparable change in the number of vessel movements, and I want to refer to this for a moment because it is quite significant. I am sorry I have no comparative figures here, but coastal or inland commercial vessels, including fishery vessels, numbered 22,316 in 1962 and 19,325 in 1963. This is in terms of arrivals only. These figures give, I believe, some indication of the importance of this traffic.
In listening to the hon. gentleman's remarks I wondered whether or not it was wise to attempt further to regulate this traffic through a federal agency and to remove the regulation of that traffic from the area of provincial jurisdiction in which for the most part it now rests. It is this point to which I wish to come next. As this question is peculiar to British Columbia and has to do to some extent with the growth and direct development of British Columbia, I wonder whether or not we are wise in bringing this domestic traffic into the federal field in the manner suggested by my hon. friend.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point. Quite frankly, I am puzzled at his reference to this coastal traffic being within provincial jurisdiction.
I wonder whether he could spell that out,
Transport Act
because my understanding is that it is under no jurisdiction, except for steamship inspection and that sort of thing.


Grant Deachman: I think this is quite true. This traffic is literally self-regulating today in the province of British Columbia. I might explain, although I am sure my hon. friend knows this, that the movement of ships, for instance, for use at pulp mills up and down the coast and for the movement of paper from the pulp mills down the coast to Vancouver and further to Seattle is done in two ways. Contracts are let for this movement at the beginning of the season. The job is put out to tender and the various barge operators on the coast contract with the operators of the mills or the shippers for the hauling of the paper and chips from the mills.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is not the hon. member aware that my bill refers only to the public carriage of goods and passengers? It has no relationship to the contract carriage of bulk goods.


Grant Deachman: I am sure that the barges operated by commercial barging companies are classified as commercial carriers; that these carriers who contract for the movement of goods are in fact the carriers of the goods for the shipping company, and would thereby be classed as public carriers. I see my hon. friend shaking his head, but I do not know just how I could classify them. If a barge company, for example, is not in the special business of hauling pulp and paper, but is in a commercial business, then I believe that company would be classified as a public carrier. I believe it is a public carrier whether its goods are moved under a tariff or whether its goods are carried under contract.
I should like to go on and point out some of the features relating to the exemptions under section 12 of the Transport Act to which my hon. friend referred, and which I feel he rather skipped over. I do not want to leave this section without explaining it a little more fully. This is the one that deals with exemptions under the act. I quote from section 12, subsection 4:
The provisions of this part do not apply in the case of ships engaged in the transport of goods or passengers,
(a)	between ports or places in British Columbia-
It was there that my hon. friend stopped
early in his remarks. However, the section continues as follows:
(b)	between ports or places in Hudson bay, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and the gulf and river St. Lawrence east of the western point of the island of Orleans, or between any two or more places therein, nor does this part apply between any of such ports or places and ports or places outside of Canada.
Thus the exemptions which my hon. friend mentioned in explaining the act apply to the

Transport Act
west coast, to Hudson bay, to the east coast of Canada and to the lower reaches of the St. Lawrence river. In other words, what we are looking at here is not a section of the act in respect of the control of shipping which relates to seaborne craft at all. The section is specifically designed to cover lake vessels and the upper St. Lawrence reaches and in no way at all relates to traffic on the west coast, the east coast or in any of the salt waters surrounding Canada. I think this should be made perfectly clear as we consider this act which specifically relates to traffic on the great lakes, on the upper St. Lawrence regions and in no way relates to traffic on the British Columbia coast.
I want to move on a little bit to consider for a moment the changing nature of services on the west coast. My friend will remember that his area was at one time served by the old Princess Alberni, which called at his port and at other ports up the coast along the west coast of Vancouver island. A number of years ago this old vessel was suspended from service, I believe, and is probably running guns into Cyprus today or performing some other useful task. It is also true that about the time when this service was suspended a road was driven through from Port Alberni and people can now, for the first time go through to the Pacific ocean, even if they are not going on some business for the McMillan, Bloedel Company.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Only if you are going at night or on week ends.


Grant Deachman: I realize that the service is still not on a day to day basis; nevertheless my hon. friend has the privilege of representing a riding which has a road in it and now, for the first time, passenger cars and private individuals are enabled to travel out to the Pacific ocean. This is the only road in Canada that takes you to the Pacific ocean. The rest of us only reach the inside passage. One of the things that the withdrawal of these old vessels has accomplished, as new methods of transportation, has been the construction of a growing shift in the roadways which now reach out to the Pacific coast.
I suggest that if we had protected these old vessels by legislation, this new system of transport which now enables people to move freely in and out of Port Alberni would not be available now. I want to cite a further instance. The government of British Columbia, for which I hold no brief has done a rather excellent job in improving ferry services. This new ferry service to Vancouver Island, connecting with the riding of my hon. friend, has replaced the ancient and creeking machinery of the Canadian Pacific which formerly took

a long time to render service to him and to the people of his riding. I suggest it was the competitive spirit of the people living on the coast and in British Columbia which felt that that was necessary to improve upon the facilities serving my hon. friend's riding.
Had the hon. member been able to get his bill through a few years ago, the cloak of protection would have been cast around the shaking shoulders of the old Canadian Pacific. These ancient vessels would still be plying back and forth across the Georgia strait. We would all be cursing and gnashing our teeth, wishing for something better, and talking about building tunnels and bridges. Instead of that, local competition has built new and good services. I suggest that we let her rip, my friend; let these people fight it out and provide better services. Put your faith in free enterprise. Turn your back upon socialism and march forward to victory.


Mr.   Ron. Basford@Vancouver-Burrard: enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) explaining his bill, partly because I have certain connections with his riding. When 1 heard him discuss the early shipping in his riding, I was reminded of the fact I had the good fortune to graduate from one of the leading high schools in his riding which used to return an independent Liberal to this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what he called himself.


Mr. Basford:: I am sorry to see that the riding of Comox-Alberni has fallen into such a bad way.
I enjoyed listening to my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) conduct his spirited examination of the provisions of this bill. I particularly enjoyed his references to the area of the hon. member's riding and the west coast of Vancouver Island. I well know how dependant it has been upon coastal shipping. I considered that before debating this bill I should look at the explanatory notes to determine exactly what the hon. member wanted to do. Normally one can look at the explanatory notes of a bill to determine exactly what is intended and why it would be a good thing to pass the bill. But I find that these explanatory notes are rather sketchy and really do not set out what the bill is intended to do at all. They simply say:
The principle of this bill is one that is recognized by parliament: namely, that public convenience and necessity may require public carriers of goods and passengers to be regulated.
It does not go on to state exactly what form the regulations will take.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act respecting the International Bridge over the St. Clair River known as the Blue Water Bridge.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act to amend the Estate Tax Act.
An Act respecting The General Council of the Canadian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association.

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: (1) the hon. member for Lapointe: transfer of administration of Eskimo affairs to the province of Quebec; (2) the hon. member for Pictou: proposed removal of C.N.R. agent from West-ville, Nova Scotia; (3) the hon. member for Kootenay West: disposition of unfilled portion of Gunnar mines contract.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-98, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
Guy Marcoux: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but we are not ready to accept this measure immediately, in view of the fact that, this afternoon, within five minutes, the house passed Bill No. C-99, thereby voting an amount of $8,837,000 and some odd dollars, and that, according to the Bank Act, that amount only represents a cash 20220-220
Bank Act
reserve of $883,700 on the part of the chartered banks. It may then be realized that, before extending the application of the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, the Bank Act must be explained to certain hon. members.
We have raised that question many times, and several hon. members said the Social Crediters were talking through their hats. However, I am under the impression that several hon. members have never read the Bank Act and that they have no idea of what its consequences might be.
That is why I feel that those who may not be familiar with the Bank Act should be told what it is all about, and it is for their information that I will say a few words about it. I can assure the house that in doing so I have no intention of delaying either the passage of this bill or any other business of the house. But since we are especially interested in chartered banks, I thought I should say a few words at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the house on the following quotation of Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno:
In the first place, then, It is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few, and that those few are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be appropriate to call hon. members' attention on chapter 48 of the 1953-54 Statutes of Canada, 2-3 Elizabeth II, and to read the definitions given under the heading "Interpretation". I am sure they would be quite surprised by what they would find out.
I should like to point out that this has to do with the legislation on banks and banking operations, but I must say that the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act are two different things entirely. As a matter of fact, the Bank Act is recorded in chapter 48 while the Quebec Savings Banks Act is in chapter 41 of the same statutes.
And here is what can be found in section 2 of chapter 48:	"agricultural equipment",
"agricultural implements". And then the definition of a bank follows. Subparagraph C of section 2 says:
"Bank" means the bank to which this act applies.
And then it goes on with the definition of various terms used in the Bank Act, such as "bill of lading", "branch", "corporation controlled by the bank", "farm", "farm electric system", "farmer", "fish", "fisherman", "fishing", "fishing equipment and supplies", "fishing vessel", "goods, wares and merchandise",

Bank Act
"grain", "hydrocarbons", "inspector", "live stock", "manufacturer", etc.
That means that the Bank Act is quite clear and that we are justified in wondering from the beginning what is the purpose of all those definitions.
Mr. Speaker, when we, members of the Social Credit party, say that chartered banks can create credit, that is do something with nothing, when we say that chartered banks can create credit which is 10 or 12 times the amount of their cash reserve, we are told that we talk through our hats.
And yet, if one refers to section 71 of the Bank Act, one can read the following:
The bank shall maintain a cash reserve in the form of a deposit with the Bank of Canada and of Bank of Canada notes held by the bank, and such reserve shall be not less on the average-
-and please note that it does not say more,
-shall be not less on the average during any month than 8 per cent, or such other percentage as may be fixed by the Bank of Canada under the provisions of the Bank of Canada Act.
The chartered banks legislation refers to the Bank of Canada Act, so that we have to consult another act to know exactly the problem of the cash reserve of chartered banks.
And if one looks up the Bank of Canada Act, which is chapter 13 of the 1934 statutes, one can see that section 24 deals with the reserve chartered banks must maintain.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not read everything which concerns this matter, for there are two pages.
In 1954, the act was amended under chapter 33, and section 11 says:
Section 24 of the said act is repealed.
This means that everything in section 24 was repealed, everything concerning the provision of fixed cash or numerary reserves was eliminated because section 24 had been repealed.
Section 28 is repealed and replaced by the next section which becomes section 24. That section mentions a reserve to be maintained by the banks-and this, Mr. Speaker, is in the Bank of Canada Act, not in the Bank Act concerning the chartered banks.
It is very easy to compute the amount of numerary reserves to be held by the banks; I can immediately prove it by quoting subsection 2 of section 71:
For the purpose of determining the amount of the cash reserve required to be maintained by a bank during any month,
(a)	the amount of its deposit liabilities payable in Canadian currency shall be the average of such deposit liabilities at the close of business on Wednesdays in each of the four consecutive weeks ending with the last Wednesday but one in the preceding month,
(b)	the amount of Bank of Canada notes held by the bank shall be the average holdings of such
IMr. Marcoux.l
notes at the close of business on Wednesdays in each of the four consecutive weeks ending with the last Wednesday but one in the preceding month, and
(e) the amount of its deposit with the Bank of Canada shall be the average amount of such deposit at the close of business on each juridical day of the current month.
I know that many members of the house are experts, but it is really difficult to know what are the average cash reserves the chartered banks are supposed to keep. However, they are well protected by the law, I may assure you.
(3) If the property and assets of the Bank of Canada are insufficient to pay its debts and liabilities and the Bank of Canada suspends payments of any of its liabilities, the deposit made under this section by every bank is hereby guaranteed, and the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, shall authorize payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of such moneys as are necessary to implement the guarantee.
That is why we have been saying that the banks have discretionary powers, incomparable powers. We would like to see this act amended in some way, so that the people are dealt with a little more justly.
Now, you know what a bank is: the act tells us "Bank means a bank to which this act applies".
What are the powers and business of the banks?
I read this in section 75, and you will see it is very important:
The bank may
(a)	open branches;
It is a great privilege and it is very convenient for banks to open branches.
(b)	acquire, deal in, discount, and lend money and make advances upon the security of, and take as security for any loan or advance made by it, bills of exchange, etc-
I shall not go any further, Mr. Speaker, but I meant to show that the banks are entitled to make loans from 10 to 12 times the amount they have as a reserve in cash on deposit in the Bank of Canada.
The law says so; it is neither us nor even Messrs. Towers, Rasminsky or Coyne. It goes to show that banks have extraordinary powers.
Do you think it would be to one's advantage to be a director of a chartered bank? It could be, because according to the Directory of Directors published by the Financial Post of Canada for 1962, people of very good families, of very good reputation, are chartered bank directors and, at the same time, probably by accident, control more or less directly many companies. I will not quote the whole Directory of Directors, it would be too long and, besides, my time would not suffice. However, I will read the names of some very

decent persons who have succeeded well in business, and I would have done the same thing if the opportunity had arisen.
For instance, in the Bank of Montreal there are: Hon. C. Wallace, director of the Bank of Montreal, who partially controls 16 companies; Hon. H. de M. Molson, also director of the Bank of Montreal, who partially controls nine companies; Hon. Sir Leonard Outer-bridge, who partially controls two companies; Hon. James Sinclair, who partially controls seven companies; Hon. Leslie M. Frost, who partially controls eight companies.
For the Bank of Nova Scotia: Hon. E. Asse-lin, who partially controls 11 companies; Hon. S. A. Hayden, who partially controls six companies.
For the Canadian National Bank: Hon. J. M. Dessureault who partially controls five companies; Hon. F. Philippe Brais, who partially controls 14 companies; Hon. Jean Raymond, who partially controls 32 companies.
For the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce: Hon. G. P. Campbell, who partially controls 37 companies; R. H. Winters, who partially controls 20 companies; Hon. G. B. Foster, who partially controls 35 companies; Hon. J. V. Clyne, who partially controls five companies; Hon. F. M. Ross, who partially controls four companies; Hon. C. C. Pratt, who partially controls 15 companies.
For the Royal Bank: Hon. Paul H. Bouffard, who partially controls 19 companies.
For the Toronto-Dominion Bank: Hon. J. A. Mathewson, who partially controls ten companies.
For the Provincial Bank of Canada: Hon. J. Olier Renaud, who partially controls five companies; Hon. Gerald Martineau, who partially controls seven companies; and formerly, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, who partially controlled three companies.
That was taken from the Directory of Directors for 1962. I checked the 1963 edition: the name of Mr. Lionel Chevrier has been deleted; the name of the Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, who controls Famous Players Corporation is there, but no mention is made of the fact that he is a director of that company.
However, the 1963 edition mentions Mr. Roger Letourneau, big fund raiser of the Quebec Liberal party, director of the Bank of Montreal and associated with nine companies; Mr. Peter Nesbitt Thompson who was secretary treasurer of the Quebec Liberal federation and who is director of 49 companies, excluding the Canadian Oil Co. that he sold to American interests. Moreover, we saw yesterday or the day before that he had just been appointed director of the Greater Winnipeg Gas Company. Finally, there is Mr. Renault 20220-220i
Bank Act
St. Laurent, son of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, who is director of the Canadian National Bank and who plays a part in the control of the destiny of ten other companies.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, it is rather important to know where the privilege granted by the Bank Act, the chartered banks act and the Bank of Canada Act can lead.
As Pope Pius XI stated:
That is how in a manner of speaking they pump blood into the economic organism whose life they hold in their hands in such a way that without their consent no one can no longer breathe and only the strongest survive.
That is to say that the ones who are most determined in the fight are those who are less hampered by their conscience.
The issue is quite serious and the people cast the chain of their own enslavement because they are unaware of the power of high finance.
It is all very well to speak of planning, state control, crown corporations and what not, but no effort is made to find out the true causes of the problem.
Lately, a federal member pointed out to me that the Russian revolution, which took place in 1917, was quite satisfied with the banking system for many years since banks were only nationalized in 1935. It goes to show that even under a socialist or communist system banks are still sufficiently strong to keep on controlling the economy.
Some statements in the Porter commission's report are, to say the least, unfounded. In the first place, on pages 112 and 113, it is stated that banks create credit. We see it repeatedly written in legislation. People say it is not true. But, we see it in the Porter commission's report; not bad, for a start.
It is further stated that, with the exception of existing chartered banks, banking institutions should be allowed to make unsecured loans to individuals and enterprises in addition to loans secured under section 88.
Those amendments would increase competition and, at the same time, give the institutions more freedom to specialize as they see fit, thus improving at lesser cost their services to the community as a whole.
Without entering into an argument, I should like to say that such a reason is absolutely false and inadmissible.
This is what was said about cash reserves:
Perhaps it would be appropriate to reduce them a little further.
About foreign banks in Canada, it says:
It would be possible to have regulations to prevent foreign banks to assume control in Canada.
That is to say, we could see to it that they do not take over Canadian banks.
And the commission recommends:
That any purchase of shares in Canadian banks by foreign banks be subject to approval by the treasury board.

Bank Act
It considers abnormal that the government exercises no control whatever on purchases made by foreign banks, whereas it forbids or at least regulates such action by Canadian institutions.
Therefore, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, the question of extending by one year the application of the Bank Act is extremely important.
I understand the banks would suspend their banking operations on July 1 if the bill is not passed. I can tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) right now that it will be accepted, because it is a fait accompli. We keep, accepting accomplished facts in this House of Commons. We pass postdated bills, so to speak, for expenditures made six months ago.
We agree with the new legislation, but we want the hon. members who did not have time to examine the Bank Act to know right away that, when the time comes to really amend that act, we shall come forward with very strong arguments and, above all, we will not let the legislation pass if some of our recommendations are not accepted.
The Porter commission report also says this:
The commission thus maintains it would be beneficial to the economy if the interest rates asked by the Farm Credit Corporation and the industrial development bank were to follow more closely the rates on the financial markets, so as not to cripple the operations of private lenders.
Mr. Speaker, those agencies were established by parliament to assist the farmers, large and small, in short, to help farmers and industrialists with an average capital benefit from capital funds at a reasonable interest rate.
The Porter commission-and I shall not give the names of its members, because anybody can find them in the new book just published on the subject, but some of them are bankers-the Porter commission, as I say, is asking that interest rates be raised. Of course, the role played by those organizations then becomes worthless, if the recommendation of the Porter commission is carried out.
The Porter commission also points out:
*-that the financial situation of the provinces and of most of the municipalities is generally sound in spite of their substantial deficits in the last few years.
Is that logical? They have experienced in the last few years substantial deficits, but their financial situation is sound.
Some small municipalities have greater difficulties in getting funds than their financial situation could warrant.
That is for sure. Montreal, Toronto and few other large cities excepted, there is hardly one single municipality in a borrowing position.

It says here some small municipalities but I think that we could easily change "some" to "thousands".
But the provincial governments could often remedy that situation in helping them to supply a more complete and more up to date information for the securities purchasers.
Here, it is practically suggested that municipalities resort to some advertising; but municipalities such as that of Saint-Marc-des-Car-rieres, Beauport or others are unable to do so because they cannot get any credit.
So, as I said, I find that the report of the Porter commission contains some recommendations which are unacceptable.
I shall not go any further in this field. But I would simply like to quote an excerpt from the speech made by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), on May 12 last, as reported in Hansard, page 3186, when the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) asked him why the recommendations set forth by the royal commission on banking appointed in 1944 had not yet been put into practice. The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche then answered as follows:
I am pleased to answer this question of the hon. member for Shefford. A commission can make recommendations that the government may find unacceptable. And when we have responsible government like the one we then had, it is possible that it decided not to accept them in the political climate that prevailed at the time.
I hope and trust that many recommendations of the Porter commission will not be accepted as they stand now, because that would be detrimental to the Canadian people.
Now, as for the power of banks to create credit, that power is given to them, not alone, but with the power to charge interest also. The fact is that the Canadian government itself is faced with an extraordinary problem, because it has a considerable debt and it must pay fantastic amounts in interests alone.
In the first volume of Public Accounts of Canada for the year 1963, it is said that the amount paid in 1962-63 was $881,598,898 in interest alone.
Now we know that the deficit for that same year amounted to $691,632,927, which means that we paid $200 million more than the debt interest deficit. That is, if we did not have any interest to pay to the banks, we could get rid of our deficit and register a surplus of $200 million for 1962-1963.
Now, some hon. members are saying: If our financing was without interest, it would get us nowhere.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if this is the only thing that worries them, we are ready even to accept that the government pay some interest -I, at least, am ready to do so; but let the government pay it not to individuals, not to

those who are living from interest paid on money loaned, but to the Canadian people. There would not be any problem then, and we could pay 6 per cent, except that the money would return to the consolidated fund of the Canadian government.
Therefore, if that is enough to make it clear to people that they should use the money of the Bank of Canada, we are willing to make this concession and to accept that the interest be paid to the Canadian people.
I shall now revert to the matter of interest. The interest of the federal government is one thing, but there is also the interest paid by municipalities. In my own city of Beauport, as reported in the newspaper L'Action of March 21, 1963, the debt charges cost $184,600, which means that the percentage of the debt compared to the estimates is 41.76 per cent.
It is strange that 41.76 per cent of taxes paid by individual taxpayers are used to service the debt.
As recently as May 8, 1964, I read in Le Droit of Ottawa that the budget of the municipality of Eastview included $262,200 for debt service. Those are fantastic amounts given to people creating credit. This credit is not provided by means of some people's savings so as to benefit others, but it is created out of nothing and made available to other people. In doing so, they make a profit.
Now, the report of the Porter commission maintains that:
About 30 per cent of the credits of $100,000 or more granted by the banks at the end of 1962 were for the benefit of their directors, or of firms or companies in which they were also shareholders or directors, or of borrowers of whom they were surety.
Mr. Speaker, we can see that our system is well organized and, from memory, I could quote an export insurance company-you know that the government votes amounts for an insurance company to guarantee the payment of exports-which is now and has been for some years under the control of the chartered banks. This means that the chartered banks create credit and make loans which the people will have to repay. This is why they are sure that this amount will be paid, for if foreign countries refuse to pay, the government guarantees to them the payment of the amount involved.
I do not wish to dwell any more on the subject, for there are so many things which could be said. I simply wanted to show the members of the house who cannot conduct research that there are perhaps in the position we take justifiable points. If others wish more detail, they may ask questions. As far as we are concerned, no doubt we shall revert to the matter when the chartered banks act is introduced next year.
Bank Act


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I have to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux), whose very explicit statement may, I believe, have opened the eyes of many hon. members.
Under the circumstances, I feel that it is reasonable to pass this legislation now under consideration, the purpose of which is to amend the Bank Act and to extend for a year, that is up to July 1, 1965, the privilege of the banks to issue currency, that is to create ex nihilo the credit which is the only currency now in circulation in Canada, because even bank notes and metallic currency are bought at the Bank of Canada with a mere draft drawn on their account at the Bank of Canada and accumulated through credits previously created.
We are in favour of this bill, because it is absolutely necessary for all hon. members to have enough time available for a thorough study of our Canadian banking system. Yet, they all must co-operate and, first of all, get rid of their prejudices, and lift the veil of mystery which covers the Canadian monetary system. How many hon. members have actually conducted any research in depth with regard to the historical background and the evolution and operation of our financial system? Their number is certainly very restricted.
A year would hardly be too much to enable all hon. members to contribute as individuals to the improvement of our banking system. I would, indeed think it extremely desirable for all Canadians together, putting aside all political considerations, to come, a year from now to the conclusion that it would be fitting for the Canadian government to recover the royal privilege which never should have been ceded, when the Bank Act was amended in 1870 and in 1871, and which maintained for the chartered banks the special privilege of printing bank notes and issuing credit.
In reality, the issuance of credit is a sovereign power lent to the commercial banks, but the time has come for the federal state to recover that right to issue credit through the Bank of Canada.
With confederation, the provinces gave to the central government the exclusive right to legislate in monetary matters. Why did the federal state, even after the setting up of the Bank of Canada, leave to a private sector of our economy, that is to the chartered banks, the prerogatives of bank credits. That is something absolutely inconceivable that the most important operation, the issuance of credit or the creation of new money, be left in the hands of chartered banks. '
Only parliament has the power to amend the chartered banks' act and that is why

Bank Act
even if in a year's time, we passed only one item of legislation giving back to the Bank of Canada the absolute power to issue credit, to coin the resources of Canada for the benefit of all Canadians, it would be infinitely better than a great number of meaningless pieces of legislation passed these last 25 years, because they only evaded the problem of a stagnant economy and a galloping inflation.
Our monetary system is essentially inflationary in character. Canada cannot go on stagnating in a financial system that gives us deficit budgets, an exhausted treasury, monetary instability, continuous depreciation of our currency, lack of currency, exchange control, high cost of money, multiplicity of taxes, nuisance taxes, and finally credit anarchy. Whether it concerns a nation or a business, any sound administration must obey a rigid set of rules. For that purpose, we must regulate the financial activity of the country and also the national economic activity.
Someone just handed me a document showing that inflation does exist in most countries of the world at the present time. Even the common market has to declare war on inflation. Canada is not the only country faced with inflation; there is inflation in all countries which have adopted the same financial system. There is inflation in Brazil and also in other countries. The Minister of Finance is now waiting for something and I am under the impression that he is looking for new solutions to free the country from the financial trap which stifles Canadians. In his last budget, he stopped the increase of taxes, but for how long?
I take this opportunity to tell the Minister of Finance that I support his policy aimed at freeing our country from foreign capital, and I prefer the nationalism of a Walter Gordon to the internationalism of Eric Kierans who, with the policy he advocates, is one of the worst masters of the inflation and depreciation of our currency.
Nationalism is not an exaggerated desire for power, but on the contrary it is the will to maintain and develop what is necessary to the life of the community.
Mr. Speaker, from the end of 1954 to July 1, 1963, monetary inflation increased in a dangerous way. Indeed, during that period, borrowings on foreign financial markets by municipal, provincial and federal governments as well as by private companies totalled $5,140 million. During that time, foreign investments in Canada reached $13,950 million.
Furthermore, if we add to those amounts, the amount of the new credits issued by

chartered banks during the same period, amounting to $5,248 million, we have a grand total of $24,338 million of debt money put into circulation in Canada over a period of eight years and six months. That is aberration at its worst. On the other hand, when an economic system needs artificial means to function, it is basically unsound, and this bill will give us ample time to rectify the matter. Statistics on consumer credit show that, at December 31,	1963, there were
$6,604,000,000 in loans to finance consumer goods. That figure does not cover instalment purchases, accounts and credit cards of all kinds.
It is by hundreds of millions of dollars that chartered banks create credit for the loan companies which finance consumption. In addition, they must also finance consumption themselves, because consumers do not have enough money to buy goods. That is a new factor which contributes to disastrous inflation in our country. It is precisely in such circumstances that violent economic crises occur; if that is so, it is because instead of merely financing production, an artificial purchasing power is based on the hope of meeting monthly instalments rather than on the true purchasing power at the time of purchase or on previous savings. Indeed, that is a frightening situation if you consider the interest rate on all those consumer loans.
That proves once again the necessity of amending the Bank Act, because when a country such as Canada cannot give a lasting value to its currency, cannot balance its budget and only succeeds in increasing its debts, it is easy to see that we are going around in a vicious circle.
Financial balance and the stability of monetary value can never be achieved as long as parliament does not give the Bank of Canada, this bank of banks, the regalities which it should have logically and naturally, and as long as a distinction is not made between social investment expenditures or public investment expenditures, which provide the funds required for the national equipment, and the commercial capital meant to boost the agricultural, industrial and commercial activities.
Thus, thanks to the bill which is now before us, we 'will be able to prepare within a year the necessary monetary reform. It will then be possible to achieve such a reform quite easily by amending the Bank Act in such a way as to provide that henceforth the Bank of Canada would have the privilege of creating credit. It would not be more difficult than that. Thus, any credit would be based on values under the control of a national credit

council with representatives from the Bank of Canada, the major financial institutions, including the credit unions and the major intermediate agencies.
As for the methods of application of banking practice concerning the rediscount of banking instruments which could be granted to all banks and credit unions-and I insist on that-that is a matter of internal administration that the national credit board could change. However, I wish to point out that the maximum interest rate on loans made by banks as well as credit unions, should never, under any circumstances, exceed 5 per cent.
I add that the Bank of Canada would be authorized to grant credit without interest or at cost to the government of Canada for the financing of public capital works or social services, always under the control of the national credit board, so that those treasury operations could be made according to criteria corresponding to statistics. That procedure would be a scientifically controlled release of purchasing power directly to the public and would constitute a reversal of the monetary circulation to finance consumption. In our present system, credit is generally issued in order to finance a new production, while there is no money in circulation to buy the former production.
From now on the Bank of Canada would look after the financing of treasury bills, if any, at administrative cost.
Finally, the municipal credit bank, connected with the Bank of Canada, would replace the municipal loan fund and would grant loans to municipalities at administrative cost, accepting their bonds as security. It would be a very simple machinery which would upset nothing and which would put everything back in order, allowing the economy to operate smoothly.
What would result from the implementation of those financial proposals? We would witness a gradual decrease in municipal taxes, a reduction of federal and provincial taxes, a revalorization of our currency and, finally, a drop in the cost of living. The various governments would be able to balance their budget. There would be work and income for everyone, and coercion and centralization under any form would disappear.
If, on the contrary, the federal government maintains its policy of impoverishment of the Canadian people and of depreciation of all our values, there will no longer be any hope of establishing a truly binational confederation, and the federal administration will remain under a financial tyranny when it could become free so easily.
21, 1964	3459
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones [Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Duration of authority to carry on business.
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West asked if clause 1, section 6(b), meant that in the event that parliament did not sit for 20 days during the month of June, 1965 the provisions of this act would apply for 60 sitting days following the first of July, 1965. That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZONES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East) for the second reading of Bill No. S-17, respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada.
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker,
at five o'clock yesterday, when this item was last up for consideration, I was nearing the end of my remarks, but I referred to statements which had been made during the last election campaign with regard to this very important matter of the protection of our coastal waters for the exclusive use of our fishermen, so far as that may be possible.
I note that these comments have gone back over the years, indeed over the last three election campaigns. Speaking in Yarmouth on March 14, 1958, the present Prime Minister was reported as follows:
Mr. Pearson's most important proposal.. .was a strong endorsement of the extension of Canadian territorial waters from the present three mile limit to 12 miles. This would oiler Canadian fishermen much greater protection from foreign fishing vessels.
He said that in spite of the fact both Britain and the United States are opposed to it Canada should continue to press for this extension due to the international conference next fall.

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones I do not know to which conference he could have been referring, because when that statement was made the very important law of the sea conference of 1958 was then going on in Geneva. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the two conferences on the law of the sea took place in the intervening period between that and the 1962 campaign, one in 1958 and one in 1960, and in the interval the government of the day was trying by every means possible to reach agreement so that we might extend our exclusive fishing zones.
As I have already said, this business of legislating with regard to nationals of other countries on what we admit is part of the high seas, is a very questionable procedure.
I reiterate that I hope it will succeed, but it is a difficult thing unless we have the cooperation and agreement of some of the most important countries involved which have a stake in this matter.
I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible, but I would like to point out that this became a political issue, or attempts were made to make it a political issue. With reference to the 1962 election campaign, reporting a speech that the Prime Minister made in Charlottetown, the Toronto Telegram said:
He also made his first formal promise of the campaign. A Liberal government, he pledged, would institute a 12 mile limit (to replace the existing three mile limit) unilaterally, if a 12 mile limit could not be achieved through nter-national agreement.
This was repeated many times, and an attempt was made to create the illusion in the minds of those listening to these speeches that if the present Prime Minister were granted the magic power of being Prime Minister, all he had to do was wave some magic wand and all these foreign vessels would disappear over the horizon and never be seen again. It was as simple as that.
For example, speaking in Sydney during the last election campaign in 1963 he said:
-we as a Canadian government will declare a 12 mile limit by national action.. .I'm not afraid of this step-the present government is.
Mr. Speaker, the former government, referred to in that context as the "present government", was not afraid to take action. I must say I have great respect for bravery, but I have learned over the years to have great misgivings about foolhardiness and it would be a terrible mistake if, by doing something brash, we antagonize our friends to the point where they would make it as difficult as possible for us to attain our objectives.
These speeches by the Prime Minister went on indefinitely, and I think they were unfortunate because an attempt was made to create the impression in the minds of our

fishermen that a 12 mile zone could be set aside exclusively for their own use. This is virtually an impossibility because there are a number of treaty rights and other things which have to be taken into consideration.
In this connection, when the Prime Minister's formal pledge was first made in 1962,
I read this quotation from a report of the occasion:
During supper in Charlottetown, the Liberal leader read over his speech for that night and added a final paragraph. It was a tricky ending for a political address-a few sentences on political morality reinforced with quotes from Wesley and a modern Catholic philosopher and theologian- but it worked beautifully.
I must say it did not work because the people I represent are shrewd, and they were not taken in by this. I am not sure to which Wesley he was referring. It may have been a former member, Mr. Wesley Stewart. On the other hand, if he was talking about John Wesley, I am sure John Wesley must have turned over in his grave when that statement was made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe it was John Wesley Pickersgill.


John Angus MacLean: That would figure. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude because I know there are other members who wish to participate in this debate. I am not even attempting to mention a number of important factors, such as the problem of enforcement that may be involved, but I am sure this will be covered by other hon. members.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that the bill would be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I think this is an important piece of legislation which should be examined thoroughly by the committee and I welcome the expression of intention in this regard. However, I want to say this: A promise was made by the party now in power that within a year a 12 mile exclusive fishing zone would be instituted. An attempt was made to imply that this 12 mile zone would be for the exclusive use of Canadian fishermen. What is the state of affairs? Legislation is being brought in at this time, but because negotiations are still continuing we do not know what concessions we shall have to make to other countries in order to get their acquiescence in this. Both the minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) are reported to have said in Washington on December 5, 1963-I have a report here which perhaps I could read:
Both External Affairs Minister Paul Martin and Fisheries Minister Hedard A. Robichaud said here yesterday that historic rights of United States

fishermen will not be affected when Canada establishes a 12 mile national fishing zone as it is proposed to do next mid-May.
I do not always depend completely on the accuracy of such reports, but there is no doubt about it that France and the United States have treaty rights which will have to be respected. So we shall have these exceptions. Then there are the traditional fishing rights of a number of countries. We do not know where we stand with regard to these, or at least I do not, because the negotiations are still going on. But I should be surprised if we were not obliged to make considerable concessions along the lines of a phasing out period. This, too, will be in the nature of an exception to the suggested exclusion.
Moreover, until the orders in council establishing the geographical co-ordinates are passed we shall not know where the base line is to be or what bodies of water will lie behind them and thus become national waters. I think this is bad practice. It is unfortunate that the effect of the bill which, after all, is the important thing, will occur at some time in the future when the government will not be obligated to bring the matter before parliament. It will be a fait accompli. Not until the negotiations are complete and the government is ready to pass the order in council will we know the effect of what we are doing now. We are buying, as it were, a pig in a poke. We do not know what concessions we may have to make in order to get any agreement at all.
My final point is this: The law itself, of course, will not become effective until its proclamation and no fixed date for proclamation is given in the bill. We have no means of knowing when this act is to be proclaimed and we therefore have no means of knowing when it will become effective. I hope that when the minister speaks he will be able to enlighten us on some of these points. When the act is proclaimed, the only effect it will have is to become a statement of Canada's determination to establish an exclusive fishing zone, with certain exceptions, out beyond our present territorial waters. Then, when the co-ordinates are established at a later date these will presumably have a bearing on what will become our national waters.
So I regret we are passing this legislation now. However, if it will strengthen the hand of the government in its negotiations with other countries we are willing to support it on that basis at this time. But a far more logical process, to my mind, would have been for the government to have completed its negotiations and then, based on what they had been able to do, to have brought a bill before us and told us frankly what had been the result of the negotiations and what concessions we
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones had been obliged to make. Then we would know where we stood in the matter. This, in, my judgment, would be far more acceptable from a parliamentary point of view. Under the present arrangement parliament is being asked, as it were, to sign a blank cheque and trust to luck.
I think, frankly, that the reason this is being done at the present time is to create the illusion that we have reached some special milepost-and we have not. I do not think so, anyway. These negotiations, as the government has found, are long and difficult; people who do not wish to agree can stall and keep coming back to negotiate again and again. It is slow progress. When the former government were trying to safeguard Canada's interests by negotiating patiently but actively in this field we were accused of not doing anything- of having no will to succeed in this endeavour. This was not the fact, and I deplore the situation which has brought about the somewhat premature presentation of this legislation to parliament. Nevertheless, on behalf of the official opposition I wish the government every success in these negotiations. We hope they will be fruitful. We have witnessed this spectacle of promises made in the heat of election campaigns. They sounded good-as if this was as simple a matter as could be imagined; as if when the present Prime Minister came to office all he had to do was say the word and these foreign fishing vessels would disappear over the horizon forever. Now we see the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the role of sorcerer's apprentice trying to make it appear as though we were achieving this result. That is the aspect of the legislation which I deplore.
I have only one further comment to make. No matter how successful we may be in these negotiations, even if we succeed in our objectives, there is a still more important factor yet as far as the fisheries, particularly in the Pacific, are concerned. I refer to the general problem of the conservation of the resources of the high seas. In this connection I should like to quote briefly from a statement made by a member of the Canadian delegation at the Geneva conference in 1958. The representative was Mr. Ozere, the present assistant deputy minister of fisheries, and I quote his remarks because what he says is self-evident when one is familiar with the facts of this matter. Here is the extract from the record:
Mr. Ozere (Canada) observed that, whatever understanding might be reached on the extent of the territorial sea or the contiguous zones, there would remain many problems affecting the conservation and management of sea fisheries which would not be solved by the simple formula of drawing lines in the seas. That was not to say that the adoption of an exclusive fishing zone would not be of definite benefit to those countries which, like his own-

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones That is, Canada:
-had developed their fisheries mainly along their own coasts.
That is the situation, exactly, as I see it; I think that states it well. I wish the government success in these negotiations and in the other inevitable negotiations with regard to the conservation and exploitation of the living resources of the sea.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to say that I agree with the views which have just been expressed by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) about the weaknesses of this bill as far as the absence of any determination of the base lines that are to be fixed is concerned. He referred to the bill as being a pig in a poke, and I intend to say something further on that aspect of the matter later on in my remarks. I hope to find that the hon. member is prepared to support my contentions in this connection.
Actually, when this bill was introduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) with his usual verbosity and enthusiasm, I must say the thought that crossed my mind was that the bill was a bit like the proverbial bride's first cake. While it may be a little difficult to imagine the Secretary of State for External Affairs as the blushing bride rushing in with the cake to show it off to hubby, nevertheless that was the thought that crossed my mind as he was introducing this bill. The unfortunate thing, it seems to me, is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government, in their hurry to produce this first cake have become a bit flustered and have left out of the bill, or the cake, a good many of the essential ingredients. In fact it seems to me there is really nothing in the make-up of the bill but flour and water, and therefore the result is really not much of a cake.
I certainly agree with the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and with those made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) as to the importance of the subject matter that is dealt with in this bill. A bill which has to do with the matter of the territorial sea and fishing zone of Canada is, in my view, a matter of importance not only to the people who live in the coastal areas of Canada but to the entire nation. Much has been said about the importance of the living resources of the sea in a world where the population is growing apace and where an increasing shortage of high protein foods becomes ever more evident. I think it is in the context of that kind of situation that at least the subject matter of this bill should be considered, even though in my view the importance of the bill which has been presented falls


a long way short of measuring up to the importance of the subject matter.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) referred to the bravery of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) with regard to some statements he had made in the Atlantic areas of the country in reference to the declaration of a 12 mile fishing zone for Canada. As far as I am concerned, thinking back to the days when I was first in the house, when some of us from over here were advocating the desirability of a firm course of action by Canada in this connection, the brave words of the Prime Minister certainly represented a good step forward. But, of course, I am sure the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) will agree with me that from our experience and observation we always find that the Liberal party and its leader are much braver when they are in opposition than when they are on the side of the house to the right of Mr. Speaker.
Consequently, now that we have this bill before us we find there has taken place a considerable retreat from some of the bolder words that were uttered by the Prime Minister on the occasion to which the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) referred.
We in the New Democratic party have been attempting to follow all the recent developments in this situation as closely as we can. Reference has already been made to the United Nations conferences on the law of the sea in 1958 and 1960 and of the failure there to reach international agreement on this subject matter by the required two thirds majority in a vote. I am not going to expand upon that situation, except to say that it has, of course, made quite evident the fact that if anything is to happen in this context, some action along the lines of the declaration of the Prime Minister for the establishment of a fishing zone for Canada needs to be taken.
We have advocated that this action should perhaps have been taken earlier than it was, while recognizing of course that there is a great deal of need for international co-operation in this area. However, as far as we are concerned we believe that the real area in which international negotiation, international treaty and international understanding is required lies in the high seas problems as far as the fishery is concerned to a much greater extent than it does in connection with the establishment of a coastal fishing zone. We believe, also, that in the light of the action which has already been taken by a very larger number of the nations of the world, Canada certainly is well within her rights in taking a firm position in this connection.
During the period since this announcement was made by the Prime Minister, and since we have been informed in our questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs

and to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robi-chaud) that negotiations have been going on, we have been very much concerned as to the progress of these negotiations. We have been quite concerned that these negotiations appear to have become quite protracted. I am not prepared at the moment to pass any severe judgment upon the Canadian negotiators in this field because the negotiations have not been sooner brought to a determination, desirable though I feel that would have been; but during the period when we were addressing questions to the government on this subject we rather assumed from the answers that were being given to us-perhaps we took this too easily for granted-that the government would not be bringing any legislation before parliament on this subject until these negotiations were concluded. Obviously we wrongly assumed that this would be the case. Naturally we took it for granted that the government would expect parliament to have the substance of the matter before it before we were asked to approve legislation, so that at least we would be intelligently informed and would know what we were talking about.
Rather to my surprise I found that the legislation was being introduced in the other place and would only reach this house following consideration there. This certainly came as a surprise to me and in many ways served rather to mislead those of us who were particularly concerned in this matter, because we had assumed that this legislation would be introduced in this house, where it could be initially dealt with either by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Fisheries.
Some of the inadequacies of the bill have already been pointed out by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean). I will not attempt to repeat them in detail, but I think there is substance in the point he made to the effect that the real significance of this change in our territorial sea and fishing zones lies much more in where the straight base lines are established than it does in the nine mile fishing fringe which will lie outside the area designated as our territorial sea.
As far as I can see, in the absence of any determination of that matter all we are getting is a poor skeleton of a bill, something which really does not amount to much more than the pious declaration which has already been made by the Prime Minister of Canada's intentions. The fact that this bill as drafted leaves it entirely in the hands of the governor in council to take action as, when and if he sees fit, on the matter of establishing the straight base lines strikes at the very crux of the principle of the bill as I see it, because
21, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones without it the main purport of the subject matter is meaningless to me.
The question of where these base lines will be established was not outlined by the secretary of state when he introduced this bill. I looked at the evidence given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries before the banking and commerce committee of the other place, and as far as I could see from the evidence they gave there, there is no indication given of the intention of the government in this regard. It is true that appended to the minutes of those proceedings is a copy of the brief submitted by the fisheries council of Canada, in which is included a couple of maps indicating the desires of the fisheries council of Canada in this connection. While many of us may agree with the proposals of the fisheries council of Canada, we have had no indication that I recall whether or not the government intends that these base lines should be established either on the Atlantic coast or on the Pacific coast. When one couples that lack of definiteness with the fact that the bill not only provides that these base lines should be set by the governor in council but that they may be changed from time to time by the governor in council as he sees fit, then it appears to me that this present bill is completely unsatisfactory and inadequate.
The subject matter of the bill, as I said earlier, is in my view of extreme importance. It certainly requires a much greater and more detailed consideration in this committee than it received in the committee of the other place, where many of those who were most interested and concerned in this matter, including the commercial fishermen themselves, were not able to appear and express their point of view.


Mr. Robichaud:: Would the hon. member permit a question. Is he aware that the group to which he is referring were given a week's notice to appear before the committee?


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not quarrel with the minister's statement on that matter and I was not expressing any view as to where the responsibility for the situation lies. However, seeing that he has mentioned this question of a week's notice, I do not feel that a week's notice on a matter of this importance is very adequate. If the minister is referring to the organized fishermen on the west coast he probably knows that at that time they happened to be involved in some rather important meetings on the matter of unresolved negotiations with which the minister is quite familiar. But as I say, I was not assessing any blame; I was merely stating the fact that their point of view had not been presented.

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
I find it increasingly difficult to understand the rather cavalier attitude which is being taken by the present government with regard to international treaties, particularly those relating to fishing. For example, during the last session I tried to bring to the attention of the house the fact that the international north Pacific fisheries treaty had been amended by the government without any proper notice being given either to this house or to the public of Canada through the medium of the Canada Gazette; that in fact the treaty had been amended as the result of a telephone call from one of the officials of a government department to Vancouver.
The government is now bringing in a bill on this very important subject while it says negotiations are still going on, no indication being given of a reasonable termination date. We are given no indication as to what is the likely outcome of the negotiations either in respect to where the base lines are going to be established or as to whether or not there is going to be any understanding, agreement or decision reached on a termination date to so-called historic rights of nationals of other countries. I gather from the evidence given in the committee of the other place that the government has no intention of attempting to renegotiate any of the treaty rights, although I do not consider that in itself to be as serious as this other question, because apparently the treaty rights are not as significant as they might have been a number of years ago. I do not know whether members from the Atlantic provinces would agree with that. Nevertheless this is the situation in which we are being asked to approve this bill, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is simply not good enough for the government to expect parliament to take definitive action which, as the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) has already said, gives the government a blank cheque to do practically what it likes with regard to where the fishing zones of Canada are going to be. Not only the present government but any future government, if this legislation is passed, will be in the position of being able to manoeuvre and manipulate in this field without coming to parliament for approval.
So, Mr. Speaker, we in this party feel that this bill should not receive approval as it stands. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron):
That Bill S-17 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof he referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries for consideration and report.
If this motion carries it means that the marine and fisheries committee of this house, comprised largely of members who are most

interested and concerned in this bill, will be in a position to say, after these negotiations are concluded, when progress reports can be made and to consider and assess what real progress the government is making in this field. If the committee is satisfied with the kind of progress the government has made, it will be able to bring back to the house definitive recommendations as to how a bill should be presented which would clearly set out the areas to be included in the internal waters of Canada and the fishing zones of Canada. We feel that unless this is done before we put anything into final legislative form, we have no guarantee that the rights and interests of the fishermen of this country are going to be adequately protected.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on this particular measure before us I want to say, first of all, that there are many very serious reservations with regard to it. So far as the general principle is concerned, which of course is what we are mainly considering at the moment, it should receive the support of hon. members. However, I can quite understand the hesitancy with which some members, especially the previous speaker, have approached this particular matter. They have voiced fears that if the measure were passed in its present form it would not, to any extent, meet the needs of our fisheries.
Looking back into the history of this particular matter, we are reminded first of all of a statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) about one year ago. He stated it was the intention of the government to declare the 12 mile fishing limit in May, 1964. Of course, we are now in May of 1964 and the measure is being presented. At that time comments were made with regard to the statement and it was pointed out in one news article that this was the fulfilment of another Liberal election promise. The article was quite complimentary with regard to this particular matter.
At that time also it was pointed out by others, for instance in the Pacific Troller, the January-February issue, and I quote:
When the Minister of Fisheries, H. J. Robichaud, announced the government's intentions to declare a 12 mile territorial limit in May of 1964, the entire fishing industry was elated with the good news.
The government's announcement was forthright and courageous; it heartened the fishermen's pride in their Minister of Fisheries and renewed our hope for protection from foreign exploitation of our shoreline fisheries which for Canadian fishermen represents practically their entire fishery.
We realize, as has been pointed out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he presented this measure, that there are currently about 50 nations that have extended

their limits and Canada is more or less following in the train of those other nations. I believe, therefore, we can welcome the introduction of the bill so far as the general principle is concerned. However, I do join with other members in voicing misgivings over a number of issues that are involved.
First of all, I would reiterate our regret over the continuing hesitancy to place the matter before the committee on marine and fisheries. We have an indication, in this particular instance, that the representations made by the fishermen's unions were not acceptable. As was pointed out tonight, they were not able to make arrangements in time to meet with the committee of the other place. I would suggest that during the past few months there has been ample opportunity for a meeting of the committee on marine and fisheries, even although this measure was not before us, and the fishermen's unions and other organizations would have had ample opportunity to make their views known with regard to the particular issues involved in the introduction of such a measure as this. I feel it is unfortunate that we have the measure before us without having had the opportunity of hearing representations from the fishermen's union and other interested parties.
There has been some discussion concerning the matter of historic fishing rights. As was pointed out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he presented this measure on May 20, as recorded on page 3411 of Hansard, there have been discussions with those countries which do possess pre-rights for parts of our shores, namely the United States and France. Then, he said:
We have made clear that the United States and France will be allowed to continue to fish in those areas where they have fished before, subject to agreed arrangements and regulations for the protection of the fisheries concerned.
It has been emphasized, I believe, that there is no intention on the part of the government to alter historic fishing rights. This, it seems to me, creates somewhat of a paradox. In the June 7, 1963 issue of the Montreal Gazette there is one paragraph in an editorial which I should like to read:
There has arisen a new anomaly. For the Canadian government, realizing the need for conservation, has prohibited Canadians from fishing under certain conditions. But foreign ships have been able to move in and fish as they please between the three mile and the 12 mile limit.
Then, the Globe and Mail for December 5, 1963, carried an article from which I should like to quote this paragraph:
This would continue an incongruous arrangement in which Canadian trawlers are prohibited for conservation reasons from fishing in coastal waters which are open to foreign fishermen.
21, 1964	3465
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
Notwithstanding the conservation arguments made by Canada at Geneva, the Canadian government's method of relieving this inequity seemingly will be to ease the regulations affecting Canadian trawlers.
This points up the particular situation that seemingly is going to exist where at times Canadian fishermen will be deprived of fishing opportunities while other nations are able to move in and take advantage of them.
Strenuous objections have been raised by the united fishermen and allied workers union which represents a great many of the fishermen of the west coast. They have been very zealous in their representations on behalf of the fishermen and have raised strenuous objections with regard to this particular matter. In their letter of May 14, 1964 they state:
We are absolutely opposed to Bill S-17 and call for its defeat unless it is amended to exclude all foreign fishermen from the 12 mile limit outside a base line which is clearly defined by legislation and not left to be defined or amended by secret orders in council.
In a news release issued by the united fishermen and allied workers union they also emphasize this matter very clearly and strenuously. Sometimes I think the intemperate language used by these organizations in making their representations is more likely to build up walls of resistance than to break them down, but none the less it does indicate how strongly they feel about some of these matters that are not covered in the measure now before us.
A distinction has been drawn between historic rights established by treaty and traditional rights established by traditional fishing practices. In this connection various views have been taken as to what should be done. For instance, the pamphlet, the Pacific Troller, to which I have already referred, calls our attention to this matter and has this to say:
We do not know what precautions our government is taking to assure that those who might claim historic rights do not develop beyond their present fishery, which we feel should be the maximum annual fishery they should be allowed, nor do we know if precautions are being taken to control such fisheries if a breakdown in our fisheries occurs, or if such foreign fisheries will be subjected to such restrictions as will be applicable to our nationals.
Then they go on to make certain recommendations with regard to historic fishing rights:
1.	That any recognition of historic rights the government may feel obligated to observe be confined to such species as have in the past been harvested by such claimants and further, that such parties be limited to their present annual harvest of those species, excepting wherein there may be an intermingling of anadromous types of fish to which another country contributes. In

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones such instances, there should be equitable consideration for the fishing rights of that country for those species in the areas involved.
2.	That any recognition of historic rights should be subject to revision by Canada, for reasons of abuse of our fisheries and improper behaviour toward our fishermen.
3.	That no permanent recognition he given to historic rights prior to a trial period of some years in which to assess the effectiveness and further complications of an extended fishing limit.
In concluding this statement they say: Those who might claim historic rights offer nothing in return.
There we have one position. Another is that taken by the fishermen's union which, as I have already indicated, is that they are calling for the defeat of the measure unless it is amended to exclude all foreign fishermen from the 12 mile limit outside a base line which is clearly defined by legislation. This means, of course, complete and full operation of the restriction.
Again, as referred to in the discussion tonight, I believe, there are those who would subject the traditional fishing nations to a phasing out process whereby they would be given a certain length of time to change their pattern of fishing. I think this is a very important matter. I realize, of course, that discussions are still going on with those who have or claim to have traditional fishing rights. However, as has been pointed out by the fishermen's union, I would emphasize that there is no intention whatsoever to seek an amendment or change as far as the treaties are concerned under which some nations have historic fishing rights, and the union, of course, is taking very strong exception to that fact.
So I think this whole matter is one of great importance. We wish the minister well in all the discussions that are going on with other nations but we do urge him to seek in every possible way to assure the safeguarding of the rights of Canadian fishermen and the Canadian people as far as the fisheries of this nation are concerned.
There has been discussion tonight about the designation of the zones or the base lines. Again this is something to which great exception is taken by the united fishermen and allied workers union. They feel very strongly that this matter should not be left to the governor in council but should be included in the legislation. Once again I would refer to their statement, to which I have already referred twice, to point out that they say that the base lines should be clearly defined by legislation and net left to be defined or amended by secret orders in council. Apparently this is going to be done at some future date. We are not just sure when. I suppose it will be when the discussions currently being

carried on are completed. But, as has been noted tonight by other speakers, we have very little or no information upon which to base commendation or criticism of government intentions with respect to this particular matter. We are left completely in the dark and will have to trust to the discretion, wisdom and political diplomacy of the minister to arrive at the most satisfactory conclusions to these matters. I do not think this is altogether satisfactory to the fishermen. I do not think it is altogether satisfactory to us because we believe there should be something more clear and more definite upon which to base consideration of this particular measure.
We appreciate the fact that the bill is to be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. Once again let me say that I believe that committee should have considered many of these factors long ago. The minister would then have had the benefit of the suggestions of the fishing industry, the fishermen's union and other interested individuals with the result that as he entered upon these negotiations and discussions he would have had a clear understanding of what these interested parties consider should be involved in the negotiation and discussion of these matters.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that the body he is referring to has presented a long, 30-odd page brief, exactly on this matter to the federal fisheries conference, so that their views have been made clear and definite to us?


Alexander Bell Patterson: They have been made clear and definite to the minister, but they have not had an opportunity to meet in person with the committee on marine and fisheries. That is the place where members of the committee could deal with this matter, question the representatives, and have a clear understanding. Perhaps the minister already has a clear understanding, but we should have as clear an understanding as he professes to have.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Once the bill has passed second reading you will have that opportunity.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The minister says that once the bill passes second reading we will have that opportunity. I think it would have been better to have had them present their views before the committee prior to this, and then we could have taken them into consideration when considering the bill. These are the only remarks I wish to make at present, but possibly some other hon. members will participate in the debate a little later.


Mr. J. B. Slewari (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: You will perhaps have surmised, Mr. Speaker, that there are few subjects on which those of us from the Atlantic provinces, and who represent the people of those provinces by the sea, feel more deeply than the preservation of our fisheries.
In the four provinces there are some 32 constituencies, and of these 29 are touched intimately in their lives by the north Atlantic. Moreover, sir, discussion of the fisheries is not a new matter in this house. There was a time, sir, when fisheries rather than wheat was the staple of debate here; and in those days the debates were robust and lively, as the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) sought to remind us somewhat earlier this evening.
It is well to remember that fishing is, after all, our most historic industry. It is well to remember too that fishing is far more than an industry. To a very great extent it touches and shapes the lives of the people involved in it. Consequently, the demarcation of Canada's internal waters, the demarcation of her territorial sea, and the demarcation of her fishing zones are no mere assertion of a mature nationhood. Rather, this is an assertion that this country is not prepared to stand idly by, doing nothing, while the fisheries are being wantonly devastated.
That phrase, "wantonly devastated", is not perhaps perfectly exact, for the truth is that no Canadian fisherman and no fisherman from any foreign country is prepared to see the great north Atlantic fisheries wiped out either by design or by carelessness. The problem has been that no government has had established any conclusive jurisdiction over large areas of these seas. Of course the fact that the difficulties that have arisen have sprung largely from an absence of jurisdiction has been very little consolation to the people who saw the source of their livelihood ravaged, or to the scientists who were prepared to devote their time and energy to the preservation of this great natural resource.
Three things are necessary; first, the establishment of straight base lines; second, the establishment by clear reaffirmation of Canada's rights relative to certain waters such as the gulf of St. Lawrence and the bay of Fundy and, third, the fixing of the extent of Canada's fishing zones. I am pleased to see that the bill now before the house envisages provision for all these necessities.
It happens that the constituency which I have the honour to represent, by reason of its peculiar shape and location at the extremity of the mainland of Nova Scotia, is one in which all these three points have a direct application. Both the Northumberland strait
Business of the House
and St. George's bay are within the gulf of St. Lawrence. At the same time, the entire Guysborough shore, from Ecum Secum to Mulgrave, will be benefited greatly from the establishment of a Canadian fishing zone 12 miles wide drawn from a base line straight from cape to cape.
When this bill has been proclaimed Canada's fishing zone will extend nine miles beyond the present three mile limit. The function of this portion of the bill, as I understand it, is to establish the existence of Canadian fishing zones. Let me say here parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that it is my understanding also that since these zones are shortly to be moved farther out to sea in many places-that is, just as soon as the straight base lines have been defined and published-these zones will not be enforced in their temporary locations. Then the bill authorizes the governor in council to establish the necessary straight base lines, these to be drawn from one major headland to another.
For example, in the case of the southern and eastern shores of Nova Scotia, I think what is envisaged is a series of lines beginning at cape Sable, touching the principal headlands and encompassing the larger offshore islands along to cape Canso and thence to Scatari island. When this base line has been settled all the waters landward of this line will be defined as internal waters of Canada. The territorial waters of Canada will be three miles of sea immediately seaward of this base line. The fishing zones of Canada will be the nine miles of sea immediately seaward of the territorial sea.
Generally, as provided by clause 4 of the bill, all fishing both within the internal waters of Canada and in the 12 miles between the base line and the limit of the fishing zone will be under the sole jurisdiction of the government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River, who is the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts, told me they had scheduled a meeting for Tuesday and unless we passed a couple of resolutions on the order paper they would have no business to transact. I discussed the matter with the house leaders on the opposite side, and there is agreement that we first call item No. 17 on the order paper, a resolution to refer the reports of

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the Canada Council to the standing committee on public accounts, and resolution No. 18, to refer the public accounts volumes I, II and III, together with the Auditor General's reports thereon, to the standing committee on public accounts. I understand these will go through with no debate. Then we will go on with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and on Monday, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, there will be a motion to go into supply.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I addressed a question to the Minister of Transport, which was as follows:
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has received a telegram from the mayor of the town of Westville requesting his support in connection with the proposed removal of the Canadian National agent from the station in that community, thus placing it on a caretaker basis. If so, would the minister request the board of transport commissioners to postpone such action until the legislation standing on the order paper in the name of the minister is passed by this house?
I bring this matter to the attention of the house because I understand a telegram was sent by the mayor of this fine mining town in my constituency and a reply was sent by the minister stating that he would assist in the matter. A representative of the board of transport commissioners went to the area on April 21, I believe, and a hearing was held attended by many people, following which a letter was sent by the board of transport commissioners to the town clerk stating that the agent would be removed from this station if further submissions were not made within a 30 day period.
This is a most important matter for this mining town, one which has been a hard luck town for many years as a result of the closing of coal mines, which has led to a labour surplus not only in the town itself but in the whole constituency of Pictou. The history of this matter is well known in the district. The area served by the New Glasgow office is a designated area and to remove the agent from Westville station would be the last step before closing the station altogether. At the present time an application is being made by

the C.N.R. to remove the centre of the line which runs from Stellarton to Oxford Junction, that is, to remove the heart from a community which, though it may not be well known in this house, is well known in Nova Scotia-Tatamagouche to Scotsburn. This proposal to take out the middle of this line or, if I might put it more roughly, take out the guts of this line would, together with the closing of Westville station, be disastrous to the whole area. I believe the submissions put forward at the hearing held by this particular officer of the board of transport commissioners gave the reason why the traffic has been cut down so greatly, namely the removal of the Canadian National Express Agency to a private individual.
I am appealing to the minister because he has the responsibility of reporting for the Atlantic development board, a board which was set up to assist the Atlantic area. If there were no rail service it would be difficult to get new industries into the area, even with the help of the Department of Industry. As I stated, many people attended this hearing, including the provincial members Donald R. MacLeod and Harvey A. Veniot, representatives from the various municipalities in the area, officers of the department of trade and industry in Halifax, representatives of chambers of commerce, and merchants in the area as well as interested citizens. The principal brief was presented by Mayor Duggan, the mayor of this hard hit town.
I would ask the Minister of Transport, in accordance with the telegram, to request the board of transport commissioners to adjourn this matter so that rail services may still be provided for this area. If this were done, the Atlantic development board as well as the area development agency under the new Department of Industry would be given an opportunity to do something for this area.


Mr. Jean-Char  les Cantin@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport: In answer to the hon. member I can say it is a fact that on April 14 the minister received a telegram from the mayor of Westville which reads:
Board of railway commissioners are having a hearing here Tuesday re closing of Westville station we are objecting to same. Would appreciate your assistance to prevent this.
A day later, on April 15, the minister answered as follows:
Application of C.N.R. is being investigated by board of transport commissioners district inspector and report on investigation will be considered by board. Understand full opportunity will be given to municipal representatives to make representations to board's district inspector. I am referring your representations to the board of transport commissioners.
That is signed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I

feel that the board of transport commissioners will take good care of this problem for the good of the citizens concerned.



URANIUM-DISPOSITION OF UNFILLED PORTION OF GUNNAR MINES CONTRACT

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as a trade union member of 23 years standing I raise a question tonight on behalf of my fellow union members. The question I asked the minister the other day was: What is the government's intention with respect to the disposition of 1,200,000 pounds of uranium oxide from the Gunnar mines unfilled contract? I intended to put this supplementary question but was stopped in my tracks by Mr. Speaker and had to use the ruse of this evening's procedure in order to make my point: Is consideration being given to placing this contract with Metal Mines Limited, formerly known as Faraday Mines, in the Bancroft area, which is scheduled to close June 30 unless the contract is provided?
There was a brief submitted by the Bancroft and district workers local union 1006 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers to the Hon. Charles M. Drury, Minister of Industry, on May 19. In view of the shortness of my time, Mr. Speaker, I think I can most usefully use the time available by quoting from the brief, and I do urge the minister to give further consideration to their representations. I presume, from the gleam in the parliamentary secretary's eye, that he is intending to respond favourably to my representations later on. This brief reads:
The Bancroft and district workers local union 1006 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers (Canada), representing the employees of the Metal Mines Limited (Faraday Uranium Mines), Bancroft, Ontario, are making this representation with a view to preventing the closure of these mining operations. Their closure will work great hardships on many people, and create another depressed area in our nation.
The members of our union in Bancroft were both disappointed and alarmed when they heard the announcement made on May 4, 1964, that uranium delivery contracts would not be renewed by the government's crown corporation. These workers had hopefully anticipated, despite threats of closure, that the government would in the future interests of the nation continue the stockpiling of uranium.
This optimistic conclusion by the mine workers in Bancroft was a direct result of promises made to them during the previous federal election campaign.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary will refer to that. The brief continues:
In order to ensure that these promises would not be forgotten, our membership over the past period of time has continued to examine ways and means by which this small mining community could be saved from becoming a depressed area. In this, we have co-operated with the various community organizations, who we believe also have made proposals to the government. We believe the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion proposals we are now making are workable and provide a proper solution to the problem facing our industry.
Then the brief goes on to make certain proposals. They propose that for immediate relief and to prevent the proposed closure of the Bancroft operations of Metal Mines Limited on June 30, the government should revert to these operations the unsold Gunnar Mines United Kingdom contract of 1,200,000 pounds of uranium oxide. They go on to deal with the possibilities of doing this and suggest a practical way in which it can be approached.
Then the next recommendation is:
2.	As a long range prospective to the problems facing the uranium industry, we again propose that the government institute some measures of stockpiling which will ensure that the three uranium communities are able to continue and that the industry will be competitive in the future.
Then they go on to say:
All engineering and political experts indicate that by 1970, there will be a large commercial demand for uranium oxide, arising from the development of uranium power and other commercial uses such as steel alloys. At that time, we repeat, it is important that the sources of supply be varied and monopoly control by one company be avoided.
I think that is a very good suggestion indeed. They conclude:
3.	New industry in Bancroft-One cannot look at the economic future of the Bancroft area without consideration of the development of a wider industrial base. It is important that even while the uranium industry operates, that secondary industries should be able to complement this basic industry to ensure the stability of employment over a long period of time. It is important, even if the uranium industry be assisted to continue and should function over the next few years, that at no time should the community be dependant upon this one industry alone.
I think that is a very constructive suggestion.
In conclusion, we wish to impress upon your government the urgency of the situation. It is now the middle of May. We are faced with the mine's closure on June 30. We have been given to understand from press reports that the question of Gunnar Mines undelivered contract is before the government. We have every hope that the government will be acting on this immediately and that this contract will be given to the Bancroft area. At the same time, we also urge that the long term viewpoint be considered and that through the use of some method of stockpiling and the establishment of secondary industry, the government will take steps to insure a diversified and competitive uranium industry in three stable and prosperous communities protected against the vagaries of one industry, through the establishment of secondary industries.
I have quoted briefly from the union's proposals, Mr. Speaker, and I do urge the government to give them consideration. I am sure that the hon. member who represents this area is very concerned about this matter; he asked a question about it on orders of the

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion day today and I hope to hear from him later. I see from looking at the parliamentary secretary that we can anticipate a favourable response to our representations.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know from the oral question that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) posed earlier today that he is vitally concerned with unemployment and its consequences in the Bancroft area. I also gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West that he too is concerned about this matter. I can assure both hon. gentlemen that this matter is also very much in the mind of the Prime Minister. Our uranium mines are in difficulties. They are in difficulties in the Elliot Lake area as well as at Bancroft. No one could be more aware of this fact than the hon. member for Algoma East.
What, Mr. Speaker, can be done about it? The hon. member for Kootenay West asked about the undelivered portion of the Gunnar contract, involving some 1,200,000 pounds of
uranium oxide. If it is distributed among the remaining producers it could keep them all running for another two months, no more than that. The government is therefore considering an incentive program. The price of $4.19 a pound will not change, but the work will go to the producer who is willing to do the most stockpiling on the side. In other words, the one which is prepared, partly at its own expense, to create the most man-hours of employment will get the contract. Invitations to tender phrased along these lines will be going out over the week end.
There is, of course, the longer term problem. Every effort is being made by the Department of Industry, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Labour to find alternative opportunities for the workers who are being laid off at Canada's uranium mines. These efforts are meeting with some success. Further announcements along these lines will be made at a later date.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Friday, May 22, 1964