1964-10-29

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to you about two questions of privilege I wished to raise, and it was agreed that because of the short sitting hours on Wednesday one of them should be brought forward at ten o'clock.
However, the question I wish to raise at this time affects all members of the house, the integrity of each and every member in relation to the tasks they assume when serving this house. It is based on a press release, prior to the report of the flag committee, which was issued in the name of one of the hon. members of that committee. I feel this constitutes an obvious violation of the duty which this committee took upon itself when meeting in camera, to withhold any and all information which might develop in the course of those meetings.
This press release is a deliberate violation of that undertaking. It is a disgraceful performance, reflecting on every member of this house who undertakes to do a job which is assigned to him by the house. This release to the press is, without doubt, one which was prepared well in advance, and I cannot understand how any such detailed report could have been prepared without the prior knowledge and consent of at least one or two of the hon. member's colleagues. The whole procedure following developments within the flag committee has taken on, with this release, the aspect of deliberate plants throughout these hearings, plants that are put before the Canadian people as the choice of the flag committee, which nevertheless in my opinion, now confirmed by this report, were a deliberate move-I do not think necessarily the workings of one man-on the part of the government to imply to the people of Canada that this was being brought about by efforts on the part of the flag committee. The report that the A.Y. Jackson flag had been accepted
as the national flag, and other similar reports, followed by this particular report, certainly convince me that everything that has been done within that committee has been done deliberately by the government, and this release would support that contention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: How much did he get paid for the article?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the remark by the hon. member that everything that was done in that committee by the Liberal members was done under the instructions of the government, or under any pressure from the government, is 100 per cent, completely false.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: How much was he paid?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let us get on with the business before the house.


Mr. Grani Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Reference was made a moment ago by the hon. gentleman opposite to a story released in the paper today, which indeed I did write. I prepared it in the committee this morning. I can assure the house that it was not prepared with any help from any other member, or indeed with the knowledge of any other member; and I did so knowing or expecting that the papers would be released later this day, after the report had been filed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: If I have caused any embarrassment to the Chair I do indeed humbly apologize.


Mr. Bell:: You embarrassed the government.


Mr. Lambert:: It is still a lousy trick.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I also rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman has stated that this article was prepared this morning. It is interesting to note that it has been copyrighted, so that certainly there has been fast action since the committee met this morning.

Flag Committee Report
This article, sir, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, is one that cannot be excused in any way. It is a violation of the responsibility of members of parliament. That committee met throughout in a spirit that is not in keeping with this hon. member's statement here, which is one more serious than I would like to describe at this moment; in fact it constitutes a complete dereliction on his part and is a matter of serious importance to this house.


Some hon. Members:: Shameful.


John George Diefenbaker: We have been wondering where all these leaks came from. No doubt this will have been cleared up now by the production of this article in advance of the house being apprized of the recommendations made by the committee. Indeed, it is a contravention, I believe, of the arrangement made in the committee, if I understand it correctly, namely that nothing was to be revealed of the course taken in the committee. In other words this is an ex parte statement made by an hon. gentleman designed to exculpate himself and apparently others associated with him in a course of action which is inexcusable in the extreme.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not seen the article and the Chair is taken by surpise, but I will look into the matter.



CANADIAN FLAG


Mr.  H. M. Baiien@Humber-Si. George's: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report, as well as the seventh and final report, of the special committee on a Canadian flag, in English and in French.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the report be read?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that it is not generally the practice to read the report of a committee at this time but with the unanimous consent of the house it could be read. Does the house give unanimous consent to the reading of the committee's report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Both reports.
[The Clerk Assistant proceeded to read the sixth report, as follows:']

The special committee on a Canadian flag has the honour to present the following as its sixth report.
1.	Pursuant to its order of reference of September 10, 1964, your committee has before it, for consideration and report, the flag question.
2.	On September 15, 1964, the House of Commons designated 15 members of the committee: Mrs. Konantz, Messrs. Batten, Cadieux (Terrebonne), Deachman, Dube, Flemming (Victoria-Carleton), Langlois, Lessard (Lake St. John), Macaluso, Math-eson, Monteith, Pugh, Rapp, Ricard and Scott.
3.	A subcommittee on agenda and procedure was appointed. The members were Messrs. Batten, Deachman, Monteith, Ricard and Scott.
4.	Your committee held 45 sittings in camera and heard 12 witnesses in the fields of history, heraldry, protocol, art and design. The members of the committee express their gratitude to these witnesses for their efforts in providing detailed information and also to the nearly 2,000 Canadians who submitted flag designs and suggestions.
5.	Your committee considered the following motions:
(a)	For a national plebiscite-motion defeated by a vote of nine to five (9 to 5);
(b)	The adoption of only one national flag-motion carried fourteen to zero (14 to 0);
(c)	That the Canadian red ensign be the national flag for Canada-motion defeated ten to four (10 to 4).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you bring in two flags, then?
[The Clerk Assistant continuing:]
6.	The designs received by the committee, together with those previously submitted, were grouped into three categories, namely:
Class A-those containing three maple leaves;
Class B-those containing one maple leaf;
Class C-those containing the union jack and/or the fleur de lys.
Elimination by an agreed procedure left only one design in each category. A vote for the retention of each finalist was then taken with the following results:
A-The three maple leaf design was retained by a vote of eight to six (8 to 6);
B-The single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of thirteen to one (13 to 1);
C-The design containing the union Jack and/or the fleur de lys was rejected by a vote of nine to five (9 to 5).
A vote was then taken to determine the committee's preference between the design containing three maple leaves and the design containing one maple leaf. The single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of fourteen to zero (14 to 0).
As previously agreed, a vote was taken to determine whether or not the final selection was acceptable as a national flag for Canada. The result of this vote was in favour, ten to four (10 to 4).
7.	Your committee, therefore, recommends that the flag to be designated as the national flag of Canada be a red flag of the proportions two by length and one by width, containing in its centre a white square, the width of the flag, bearing a single red maple, or, in heraldic terms, described as gules on a Canadian pale argent a maple leaf of the first.

8.	The committee received and discussed a motion that it submit to the House of Commons two reports as follows:
Report No. 6, being the report herein, dealing with the national flag and final report No. 7 dealing with a flag to symbolize Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations and Canada's allegiance to the crown. This motion was carried by a vote of nine to five (9 to 5).
It was moved and seconded that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag be now adopted. The motion was carried by a vote of ten to four (10 to 4).
Respectfully submitted,
H. M. Batten, Chairman.
[The Clerk Assistant proceeded to read the seventh and final report as follows:]
The special committee on a Canadian flag has the honour to present the following as its seventh and final report.
Following its decision on the recommendation regarding a national flag for Canada, your committee then considered the question of a flag to symbolize Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and her allegiance to the crown.
It was moved "That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that the Canadian red ensign may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and of her allegiance to the crown". An amendment was moved to substitute the words "royal union flag, generally known as the union jack" for the words "Canadian red ensign".
The amendment carried by a vote of seven yeas, two nays and five abstentions. The motion as amended then carried by a vote of eight yeas, one nay and five abstentions.
Your committee, therefore, recommends that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth of nations and of her allegiance to the crown.
It was moved and seconded that the seventh and final report of the special committee on a Canadian flag be now adopted. The motion was carried by a vote of eight yeas, one nay and five abstentions.
Respectfully submitted,
H. M. Batten, Chairman.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the leader of the house or the chairman of the flag committee when it is intended to move concurrence in the report that has just been presented to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as leader of the government perhaps I could answer that question. It will be recalled, I think, that on September 10, when I reported to the house in regard to
Inquiries of the Ministry the discussions held by the party leaders on the procedure to be followed in setting up the flag committee, I said at that time that once the flag committee had reported to the house I would invite the party leaders to meet me again and we would discuss the procedure to be followed in the light of the report. I have already invited the party leaders to meet me tomorrow morning. However, it is not convenient for one party leader to be here tomorrow, so I hope we will have the meeting on Monday morning.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question will not have to do with the flag committee or anything of that kind. We have had a full revelation from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra; therefore no questions are necessary.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in regard to the repatriation of the constitution. When the address is placed before the house to embody the proposed amendment, will the British North America Act in its present form be brought before the house and dealt with section by section, or how does the government intend to bring about the right of the parliament of Canada to deal with the amendment of its own constitution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement on this matter, or if I am not in my place the Minister of Justice will be making a statement very shortly on the procedure to be followed in this matter.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the question just asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and it is likewise to the Prime Minister. Is there any difference between the proposed constitutional amendment agreed to by all the provinces with respect to the delegation of powers to the provinces and the proposal of the Conservative administration in 1960, which is generally called the Fulton formula?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the delegation of federal powers to the provinces is concerned there is no difference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A question of law cannot be answered in the house, and I want to say at the same time that what the right hon. gentleman has said is not correct. It is quite different, because section 91 (1), involving matters of federal jurisdiction, is now going to come in part under the provincial legislatures, and this was not so in the formula we put forward.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has disputed my right to answer this question, and has also disputed the accuracy of the answer. In case he has some doubt about accepting my word may I quote what the premier of Manitoba said the other day on this matter. I refer to the Winnipeg Tribune of October 24, where Mr. Koblin is reported in quotes as saying:
"The delegation provisions of the draft are exactly the same as under the Fulton formula. That is why those who say it was a put-up job are completely wrong."
Including my right hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say at once that is not a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: May I also say at once that the words uttered by the Prime Minister are false. The fact is that the premier of Manitoba made no reference whatever to me in the course of his remarks. That is false, and the Prime Minister knows it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to do any injustice to my right hon. friend. When I quoted the remarks of the premier of Manitoba, the quotation as taken from the Winnipeg Tribune ended with the words:
That is why those who say it was a put-up job are completely wrong.
That was the end of the quotation. When I said "including my right hon. friend" that was my observation.


John George Diefenbaker: And, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister could have got way with that falsity he would have done so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Temper, temper.


Mr. Monteith:: Who is getting red in the face?


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Transport must not get annoyed. Doctor's orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I say I had expected an interesting afternoon, but not quite as exciting as this.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Slteena):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, relating to the dominion-provincial conference taking place today on Indian affairs. Has the right hon. gentleman knowledge of any objections by native Indian organizations and people to the fact that this meeting is being held without their presence? Further, I ask whether he does not think this is justification for opening the meeting to native Indian people so that at least, in accordance with their rights, they may attend as observers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the normal procedure in meetings of this kind is being followed, but I shall be glad to look into my right hon. -my hon.-friend's question and see if anything can be done.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the right hon. gentleman for my promotion.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to ask the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received an appeal from the arutomotive retailers association of B.C. urging immediate action to correct abuses in the distribution of gasoline, tires, batteries and accessories and, if so, is he considering taking action on this urgent appeal?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have received some representations in this respect, and I am pleased to state that the matter is receiving active consideration. I expect to be in a position in the near future to make known the policy of the government with respect to the recom-


mendations of the restrictive trade practices commission in its tire, batteries and accessories report.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: As
a supplementary question, does the minister realize this question was first asked of Hon. Lionel Chevrier in May, 1963, and a report has been promised ever since that time?


Guy Favreau: I realize this, Mr. Speaker, but I hope the hon. gentleman will also realize that I recently said I would be placing certain recommendations before my colleagues, and I am pleased to add that they are presently before the cabinet.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since he seems to be in a rather good mood today may I ask him whether he is in a position to announce today the appointment to the C.N.R. board of directors of a representative from the province of Nova Scotia? By way of explanation to the minister may I say I pose this question again as the result of strong representations from prominent members of the Liberal party in that province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, although I am not quite sure whether this is an altogether appropriate question under the rules, I may say-


Robert Muir: It was allowed the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it was allowed the other day; I noticed that in Hansard.


Mr. MacEwan:: When you were away.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, when I was away.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, the Speaker is in his seat, not over there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was answering the hon. gentleman. I was going on to say I had some doubt in my mind whether this was the kind of question envisaged in the rules given to Your Honour by the house some time ago, but I would like to have the privilege of answering it anyway, and to say
Inquiries of the Ministry that it is the intention of the government to appoint a director to Trans-Canada Air Lines, or Air Canada, from the province of Nova Scotia. I think the hon. gentleman will appreciate why, on the balance of advantages, it was thought at this particular time that this would be a more appropriate appointment for that province.



TRANSFER OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT TO PRIVATE INTERESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether consideration is being given to the transfer of the management of the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg, or any other C.N.R. hotel? If so, will Canadian companies be given a chance to put in competitive bids?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By "management" does the hon. gentleman mean ownership?


George Louis Chatterton: Management.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a matter for the management of the railway. I would not know anything about that.


George Louis Chatterton: Then would the minister inquire from C.N.R. and advise the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to make some inquiries, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice what progress is being made with respect to the study relating to juvenile deliquency, and whether he is in a position to report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question requiring an answer far too large to be given at this time. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper?


Frank Howard: May I rephrase it and ask the minister whether the committee has completed its study.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the committee has made a first report and is considering issuing a final report before the end of the year.
9550	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



CANADA PLAN-REQUEST FOR EARLY CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether the government has given consideration to the suggestion I made at adjournment time last night that very early-today, tomorrow or Monday-we take up the resolution stage of the Canada pension plan? As the right hon. gentleman knows, that could be debated in one day under the new rules and it would not delay the passing of interim supply. Has consideration been given to this suggestion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but it is considered important to get interim supply passed before we proceed to any other business, however important it may be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, has the government considered that if we take a day out of the present interim supply debate for this it will not change the final date at which interim supply is agreed to?


Lester Bowles Pearson: By the same token, the postponement for a few days of the resolution to which my hon. friend refers will not postpone the application of the bill to which it applies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That has been the story for the last 18 months.


Mr. Churchill:: Then why do you support them?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because the answer to my question about the scheduling of the debate on the Canada pension plan was unsatisfactory, I should like to give notice that I will raise the matter in the overtime period.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister responsible for the application of ARDA in eastern Canada?
Can the Minister of Forestry tell us in which areas of the province of Quebec the ARDA program, or the minister's program, is applied at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question for the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since invitations to bid on the second heavy water plant have gone out to six companies, is it the intention of the government to name the site, as was done for the first plant in Cape Breton, or will the company making the lowest bid choose the location where it can operate at the least cost?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that is not a matter within my administrative responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: It is also a question for the order paper.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question to the question directed by the hon. member for Macleod to the Minister of Transport. When he was asked a question with respect to the location of the heavy water plant, the Minister of Transport said this matter did not come within his jurisdiction. Why, then, did the Minister of Transport claim responsibility for placing the first heavy water plant in Cape Breton?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad to have the credit for it.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further question to the Minister of Transport. Did I understand the minister to reply from his seat in respect to my last question to the effect that he was glad to take credit for the heavy water plant in Cape Breton?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I was very glad that the government of Nova Scotia gave credit to certain of the members on this side of the house for seeing that that was done.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary. Would the Minister of Transport care to read the second column on page 7430 of Hansard where the Minister of Industry, the minister responsible in this case, had this to say:
I would point out that the choice of location-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question. It is a statement.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this question of privilege an attempt to make a statement or is it really a question of privilege? The Chair is trying to help the hon. member, but there is a limit.


Malcolm MacInnis: My question of privilege is intended to establish once and for all responsibility for the location of this plant, and to deny the claim made by the Minister of Transport by the words of the minister responsible, the Minister of Industry. In order to clear up this matter it will be necessary for me to quote the responsible minister, the Minister of Industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member wishes to attribute the success of this venture to one minister rather than to another?


Malcolm MacInnis: I think it is my privilege to know what the Chair has ruled, but I failed to hear the ruling because of the noise from the other side of the house. If Your Honour would repeat your question I would attempt to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can read it in Hansard. I still do not know what the question of privilege is.


Malcolm MacInnis: It involves myself. It is a personal question. I wish to clarify the statement of the Minister of Transport in regard to the question I asked, in reply to which the Minister of Transport made a complete denial of what was said by his own colleague, the Minister of Industry. There is a conflict here between two ministers, and I think it is the duty of the Chair and of the two ministers concerned to clear it up to the satisfaction of the house and to my personal satisfaction. The Minister of Transport wishes to maintain credit for the establishment of this plant-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a complaint, surely, not raising a question of privilege. If he wants a detailed answer, let him put his question on the order paper. I am sure he would then get a detailed answer.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am not looking for a detailed answer. I am looking for a truthful one.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



REPORTED COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OP FRENCH NETWORK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the hon. member no doubt knows that a voluntary committee is being set up for that great event and I take this opportunity to remind the hon. member that a few months ago, the federal government considerably increased its foreign aid program.']
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Since his recent statement, has Mr. Arsenault, a member of the Quebec provincial government, given to the R.C.M.P. the names of those he claims are communists in the C.B.C., or has he presented evidence of communist activity in the C.B.C.? Or, to use the English expression-

I would simply like to ask, have the mounted police asked Mr. Arsenault to put up or shut up in this regard?


Guy Favreau: will take this as a suggestion, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Did the R.C.M.P. ask Mr. Arsenault to supply them with a list of the supposed communists or with evidence of communist activities within the C.B.C.?


Léon Balcer: The Liberal federation?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am evidently not in a position to answer that question. All I can say is that, to my great satisfaction, whenever an investigation must be made in the public interest of Canada, it is always conducted in an efficient manner. However, I may add that if it is in the interest of the house to know the answer to that question, I can inquire.


John George Diefenbaker: Not according to Mr. Arsenault.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Inasmuch as the answer given by the Minister of Justice is rather vague and that charges were proffered by a member of the Quebec government, I believe that the minister should at least tell us if the R.C.M.P. is conducting an investigation, following the statement made by Mr. Arsenault to the effect that the C.B.C. would be harbouring communists. Is the R.C.M.P. conducting an investigation in this matter?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I just said that I was not in a position to reply to that question. I answered in a general way, and I will naturally find out if an investigation is required.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister tell the house whether the government is considering the establishment of a special foreign aid program to mark the international co-operation year?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the hon. member's question, but I shall read it in Hansard tomorrow and give a reply later.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I might repeat my question now if it would help the minister.
I asked him if Canada was considering the establishment of a special program to assist foreign countries, since the United Nations declared 1965 the international co-operation year?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member no doubt knows that a voluntary committee is being set up for that great event and I take this opportunity to remind the hon. member that a few months ago, the federal government considerably increased its foreign aid program.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether a decision has been taken by the United Nations to defer the meeting of the general assembly from November 10 to a later date. If the decision has not been taken, perhaps the minister could tell the house what progress the secretary general is making in this respect in his attempts to convince the other nations.
[Mr. Gregoire.l


Paul Joseph James Martin: The next meeting of the general assembly has been postponed to December 1.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $740,710,974.77, being the aggregate of
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, as reduced, except finance item 15, mines and technical surveys item 25, national research council item 10, and transport items 15 and 25 for which the proportion is one twelfth and atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 20, forestry item 25 and legislation item 20 for which no proportion is being released, $651,829,576.84;
(b)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of public works item 70 (schedule A), of the said main estimates, $666,666.67;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of fisheries items 5 and 10, legislation item 5, mines and technical surveys item 70, post office item 1 and public works item 40 (schedule B), of the said main estimates, $20,263,800.00;
(d)	two twelfths of all of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, and loans, investments and advances items L12a, L17a and L37a for which no proportion is being released, $20,612,522.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103a (schedule C), of the said supplementary estimates (A), $872,966.67;
(f)	nine twelfths of the total of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (B), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $46,215,108.75;
(g)	two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103b (schedule D), of the said supplementary estimates (B), $250,333.34;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
["Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A it is my duty to inform the house that the following questions will be raised at ten o'clock:\nThe hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis), Canadian coastguard service.\nThe hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Canada pension plan.", 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.']
Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, last night when the house adjourned I was saying that society is only made up of individuals, human beings, human persons whose actions are either taken personally, or as a family or a company, or all sorts of associations.
By saving the institutions we are not saving the individuals. But by saving each and every individual we are saving the institutions, especially those which are useful to the human persons.
If each individual in a country were prosperous, the nation would surely be prosperous. It would not be so, if it were the other way around. Institutions cannot prosper while

leaving the majority of individuals in poverty and insecurity.
Heads of families and single persons get equal pay for equal work.
Mothers get no salary for their work as a mother within the family.
Children and students cost a lot of money, and yet they get no personal salary in our present economic structure.
Taxes on company benefits and capital are not as heavy as in the case of private individuals.
If, to figure out economic values, the needs of the human person were taken into account, without overlooking normal capital return for our institutions, everything would become clear and easy in the making up of the national budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), because a national budget is made up of revenues, expenditures and surpluses, just like the budget of any company, any institution, any family, any individual human person.
And why not start with the easiest step in this new orientation of federal, national, provincial, municipal, family and personal administration.
You can see that we always have to come back to the human person. Therefore, let us settle once and for all the budget of the human person, which is the basic unit of the country's economy.
Mr. Chairman, that administration formula should apply everywhere. It is simple and recognized by everybody.
Revenues, expenditures and profits: that is why our 19,300,000 citizens should be assured of their personal subsistance right, guaranteeing each Canadian citizen a minimum subsistence revenue of $1 per day for each child under 16 years of age, $2 per day for each student of 16 years of age and over, $3 per day for each adult dependant, without revenue.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that I be permitted to table a more detailed statement- so that I would not have to read it into the record, which would be rather long-which is made up only of explanatory figures.
However, further studies should be made to complete this work, this draft of an administration program based on the needs of a human being while taking into account capital returns of institutions.
I am prepared to briefly expound my argument to the ministers of this government before the Canada pension plan bill is submitted to the House of Commons.
I am very keen on it, because a personal vital right program would, in itself, be suffi-
Interim Supply
cient to fulfil the whole unemployment insurance program and that of personal pensions of all Canadian citizens, whatever their age or condition.
I respectfully submit it to you and I ask you to study it in the light of the true interest you show toward the solution of the monetary, economic and political difficulties which affect every person, every citizen of this country.
The economic justice of this nation ranks first among any justice, because it affects the primo vivere of every individual within the regular framework of his daily life, of his daily earnings.
Prime Minister of Canada, Minister of Justice, minister of national, social, family and personal finance, it is up to you to act.
Priority of the individual over the institution: Wealthy, powerful and learned citizens of Canada, do you admit that this country is composed of units-19,300,000 human beings?
Wealthy, powerful and learned citizens of Canada, what use is being made of all our talents, our wealth, our authority?
Wealthy, powerful and learned citizens of Canada, are we thinking only about ourselves, our institutions, or about the 19,300,000 persons who are Canada?
A country does not exist; only individuals have life. A government does not exist. A political party does not exist. A ministry does not exist. Only human beings exist and are responsible or are not responsible.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is the one responsible before the 19,300,000 Canadian citizens.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is responsible for the administration of justice. Economic justice is the most important of any justice, because it affects the primo vivere of the 19,300,000 citizens of this country within the practical frameworks of life, of daily earnings.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is responsible for the finances of the 19,300,000 citizens of this country, in the 4,700,000 families of one or more human beings, who have a body and a mind, who have physical, intellectual and spiritual needs which are all paid for in money and which are produced by 7,000,000 working adults who are the only ones to draw revenues through their work and their capital.
The Minister of Industry is responsible.
The Minister of Agriculture is responsible.
The minister of commerce is responsible.
The Minister of Labour is responsible.

Interim Supply
The ministry, the government and the political party do not exist. Only human beings have life, intelligence and responsibility.
Let us cease burying our responsibility behind abstract barriers, behind creations of our mind, behind institutions whose responsibility is limited, atrophied, anonymous.
Every individual is responsible for his position and if he does not feel able to play his part, he should give it up to someone else.
Let us stop hiding behind party politics. Every minister should pursue only one policy: the people's policy.
And the people include 7,000,000 children under 16; 1,000,000 students over 16; 1,300,000 dependent adults in all age groups; 3,000,000 mothers without any income; 12,300,000 Canadian citizens without income; 7,000,000 adult producers with an income; 19,300,000 citizens with needs.
Every citizen has a personal vital right, a natural and divine right, attached to his person from his birth to his death, independent even from his ability to work, to earn a living, before God and man.
All groups, all companies or organizations of every type are merely human institutions, legal bodies, private or public, made up of living persons.


The Chairman:: Order.


Henry P. Latulippe: Ministers and members of parliament, whether Liberal, Conservative, socialist, Social Crediters, nationalist, separatists-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. As much as I regret it, I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I have here a table which would prove my point. However, since it is fairly long, I would ask that it be printed in Hansard, if possible, without my reading it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. No, that is not allowed, unless the table is part of the hon. member's speech.


Henry P. Latulippe: It is part of my speech, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry, but our standing orders do not allow such procedure.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, in rising today to speak on supply I would point out that we have listened to various speeches in reference to the C.B.C., but I wish to direct

my attention to something that arose this afternoon and which I believe affects the whole house. I trust you will bear with me, Mr. Chairman, because I have only had the last ten minutes in which to prepare these remarks.
I have said that this matter affects the whole house, and as the official opposition one of our major duties is to control the spending of money. When there is a privilege which affects the whole house, then it goes to the very root of the function the opposition are expected to perform in this house.
This afternoon we saw a matter which has been brushed aside by the Prime Minister. This afternoon the Prime Minister rose and said that something was false but then made no further explanation, and no other members on the government side said anything in this regard. I should like to refer to what took place on September 10, 1964. On that day the special committee was set up to consider the question of a Canadian flag. The composition of that committee comprised members of the Liberal party, the Conservative party, the New Democratic party, the Social Credit party and the Ralliement Creditistes. Although I was not a member of the committee and consequently have limited knowledge of the facts, as I understand it-and I challenge anyone to deny it at this time-when the committee first met it agreed that it would sit in camera and that if any of its considerations were to be disclosed such disclosure should be made by the chairman.
There now appears to have been a serious breach in this respect, Mr. Chairman. If such a breach occurred in a court of law which was sitting in camera the person guilty of the breach would be in contempt of court and brought before the bar of justice. I suggest that this particular member of the house is in contempt of parliament this afternoon. It is interesting to note that in the Ottawa Citizen-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif):: Order. I think the hon. gentleman will realize that he has to relate his remarks, not to an individual member but to the problem under study.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not quite follow what you mean but I have always had a lot of respect for the Chair and am trying to stay within the rules. I do not think I am out of order in this regard. I am now coming to grips with the problem. As I pointed out at the outset of my remarks, the function of an official opposition is to check into the expenditures of government depart-

merits. One of the expenditures will provide for this committee and other matters in connection with the flag. If I might continue with my remarks, I was referring to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of today's date.


Mr. Fane:: The editor is the Prime Minister's nephew.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes; as one hon. member says, the editor of the paper is the nephew of the Prime Minister. It is rather peculiar, Mr. Chairman, but on several other occasions the Ottawa Citizen has been able to publish reports concerning various matters and problems which are about to be reported to parliament prior to their actual report in the house.


Miss LaMarsh:: Well at least it speaks the truth.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now we have the minister of health speaking and we are always interested in what she has to say.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is more than we can
say of you.


An hon. Member:: Remember the truth squad.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We all know she knows about the truth because she was the one who invented the truth squad during the last election; but the Prime Minister had to dissolve that truth squad because he was losing more votes than she could manufacture. However, I do not intend to be put off the rails by the minister of health. I was saying that it is peculiar that this newspaper is often able to report upon government business which should be disclosed in the house prior to its actual disclosure in the house. This disclosure is far more serious because the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra had given his solemn oath to that committee that he would disclose no facts found by the committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I feel that at this stage I might be expected to make a comment as to whether or not the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River are relevant. I realize of course that discussion on interim supply is rather general in nature and is not, according to our practice, very easily restricted. But on the other hand, in the course of this particular debate the Chair has tried to bring to the attention of individual members the fact that speeches and remarks have to stay within the ambit of the administration of the government. That is to say, they must refer to government business. I have
Interim Supply
been following the hon. member's remarks to this point and they seem to me to relate to the conduct of an individual member of the house. I have strong reservations about whether at this particular stage of the debate these remarks can be considered relevant and proper to be discussed in committee of supply on the consideration of interim supply. The hon. member for Bow River might wish to keep that in mind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I appreciate the point you have raised. However, with great respect to the Chair, I would say that this is a serious matter of government business relating to how the government conducts its business. I submit there are past precedents for this. The terms of reference of a debate like this are that hon. members can talk on matters which are relevant to government business; and I am saying this is a matter of government business and I should like to proceed.
As I was saying, this hon. member had given his solemn promise, if not oath, to that particular committee that nothing would be-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is the feeling of the Chair that the subject matter of the hon. member's remarks deals specifically with the conduct of an individual member, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. It seems to me that this cannot be considered government business any more than the conduct of any other individual member could be considered to be within the ambit of the administration of government. I would strongly urge the hon. member to pass on to other considerations perhaps.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, in addition to referring to government business, there has been an infringement of the rights and privileges of parliament. Only the other day on interim supply we were discussing a problem which affected the Canadian National Railways. During the last two or three days we were discussing a problem concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. On both occasions we were talking about the authority of parliament with respect to crown corporations.
We are now dealing with the authority of parliament with regard to the actions of a member on the government side which infringe on the rights and privileges of parliament itself. So far as we can judge the government has given its approval of this type of action on the part of one of its members. Surely this is a problem which should be discussed at this particular time;

Interim Supply
this is the most suitable period to raise the matter because on interim supply, as on all supply debates, grievances may be raised. This is a legitimate grievance regarding the action of an hon. member who was a member of the flag committee. I think the hon. member for Bow River is within his rights in raising this topic.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre refers to the fact that the privileges of this house have been infringed. This is possible. The Chair cannot, of course, dispute that in any way but machinery is provided to deal with that kind of situation through a substantive motion. Certainly in my view, however, this matter should not be discussed on interim supply because it concerns the personal conduct of an hon. member. In this regard perhaps it might be appropriate to refer the hon. member to citation 128 (1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
A personal attack-
I realize this is not a personal attack in the sense of personalities, but it is personal in the sense that it is directed at one individual member.
-by one member upon another, is an offence against the house, in the person of one of its members, which, on account of the respect due from every member to the character and dignity of the house, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker, in order that any irregularity, into which a member may have been betrayed in the warmth of debate, may be rectified-
And so on. That is the view of the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, may I speak before you make a ruling?


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes, I would be pleased to hear the views of the hon. member on this subject before I make a ruling.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that you have read a specific rule, but with the greatest respect I suggest that it is not applicable.
I am not going into detail this afternoon, but what I am attempting to discuss is this. We have a new kind of government: We now have government through newspapers. We are observing news leaks and government through those news leaks rather than by parliament. I suggest that the whole process of government is in question.
I am not making any personal attack at this moment on the member for Vancouver Quadra, but he happens to be one of the actors who has acted on behalf of and for

the government. He is the man who allowed the news to leak out so that we could have government by newspapers rather than government by parliament.
Mr. Chairman, the rights and privileges of parliament are at stake, and the expenditure of money is at stake. Surely those matters are related to the matter under discussion this afternoon. This situation was only brought to our attention a few minutes before we came into the house this afternoon. I had some idea of the kind of motion I would move if I intended to make a personal attack, and that is something I may do tomorrow when we have more time; but today we are discussing the privileges of parliament itself.
The news item in question is nothing more than a new kind of process of Liberal government. It is government by the Prime Minister's nephew through the Ottawa Citizen. I submit that we have the right to debate this serious matter this afternoon. I can understand the attitude taken by the government in opposition to my suggestion. They adopt that attitude because they are frightened and do not want these facts disclosed to the Canadian people. The government wants to keep the opposition silent in this regard. We do not intend to be silent about this question. Of course I must respect your ruling, but if you rule against me, and I say this with respect, we may appeal your ruling. We have the right this afternoon to discuss this situation. It should be aired because it goes to the very foundation of this institution.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some observations in relation to the question now troubling you, and the point of order which has been raised in connection with a discussion of this matter.
It seems to me that there is no doubt whatsoever that we are in this committee to discuss the matter of interim supply for the next two months. We are being asked to supply funds to pay all the expenses of parliament and expenses related to committees of parliament. One parliamentary committee is now under discussion. The expenses of that committee will have to be paid by this parliament, and I say to you that if any member on any side of this house chooses to raise a point related to the matter now before this committee he has a perfect right to do so. If that discussion reflects upon the actions of a member of that committee, that is unfortunate, but it is not the point at issue. The point is that we are being

asked to vote money to pay the expenses incurred by the flag committee, and we have as much right to discuss those expenses and the actions of that committee as we have to discuss the expenditure of any other moneys.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, in relation to the question now before us, I believe on more than one occasion during the debate on interim supply members of the cabinet, and particularly the President of the Privy Council, have risen to indicate that the time for opposition members, or members on the government side, to air any grievances they have regarding the conduct of the affairs of this nation is during the debate on interim supply. That being the case, I cannot understand how one could possibly suggest that the hon. member for Bow River has been out of order this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, at first glance the thought you expressed seems to carry considerable support. However, one knows what happens with some frequency in the law courts during the course of an argument. A lawyer may find the judge in disagreement with his position, but as he continues to argue his case changes take place in the thinking of the judge. I am sure Your Honour is well aware of that fact, because of your experience. I was very much impressed, as I expect you were, by the argument advanced by one whose experience in parliamentary life has been lengthy. One of the ways by which rules are discussed is by assistance given in interpreting those rules. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, former premier of his province, raised a point which I submit is one that deserves Your Honour's fullest consideration.
A committee of parliament is set up for a specific purpose. The committee now under discussion was set up for a specific purpose. It went off to the country and apparently sought strength by looking out at the hills. All these things Cost money. Professional witnesses in heraldry and the like were called, and their expenses must be paid. That being so, those expenses are the proper subject of scrutiny by parliament. That is exactly what the hon. member for Bow River was endeavouring to do. He was attempting to ascertain whether those expenditures were in keeping with parliament procedure, and I ask Your Honour to give the fullest possible consideration to this matter so that no one will be able to suggest that parliament does not have the right to examine expenditures, however small they are as compared with larger ones.
Interim Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to offer a few brief words on this point of order. I think there must be general agreement with the concluding portion of what the Leader of the Opposition has said. I assume that the expenses of the flag committee are covered in the legislative items, or somewhere in an item a portion of which we are now voting. Therefore if one were merely arguing that we have the right to discuss what that committee did, that argument would be difficult to deny.
However, as I understand the situation, Your Honour is not concerned with the fact that an hon. member is discussing what the flag committee did, but rather with the fact that he is discussing something which took place entirely outside the flag committee, indeed outside the house, namely the publication of an article in a newspaper. I did not understand that Your Honour was trying to cut off a discussion about the flag or the flag committee. However, if an offence against the House of Commons has been committed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why do you say "if"? Do you not think he has committed an offence?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly think he was stupid. I also found it quite annoying to watch television last night and hear a member of this house state, before a report had been made to the house, that there were certain things in it he would not accept. I suppose the Leader of the Opposition has the right to be arrogant on television and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has the right to be stupid-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but we also have the right to expect the rules of the house to be observed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you think there were others involved besides the hon. member?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I doubt it. I do not know, but I think it is the kind of stupid thing that a person does all on his own. But, Mr. Chairman, surely if an offence has been committed against the house, that is for the house to deal with. It is not an offence against the committee of supply. Therefore I submit Your Honour is right in asking the hon. member for Bow River not to bring into the committee of supply the question of what an individual has done which may be an offence against the house.

Interim Supply
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and with the hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton that we are discussing the expenditure of money and I believe it is the case that some of that money is for the expenditures of the flag committee. All right, we can discuss what went on in the flag committee; but to discuss in committee of supply what an individual has done outside the house is a different story. While I do not presume to define what Your Honour is trying to rule on, it has been my understanding that it is that narrow aspect of the matter on which you have been trying to make a ruling.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 119, paragraph 2:
In parliament every comer of the country is represented and no rule should silence elected representatives when they think they have a message to deliver. Freedom of speech is a sacred principle and if there is a place where it should be fully respected that place is the parliament of the nation, and it is the Speaker's responsibility to see that this principle is not infringed upon.
Paragraph 3 reads as follows:
Relevancy is not easy to define. A wrong comprehension of it may have a serious effect on the freedom of speech. Members are often deprived of their right to speak on the pretext that their remarks are irrelevant when as a matter of fact they refer to matters perhaps remote but yet related, even indirectly, to the question under debate. In borderline cases the members should be given the benefit of the doubt. A great deal of latitude must be allowed in the House of Commons which is a forum where every phase of public affairs can be discussed and every member has the right to be heard, even if in doing so he sometimes disregards the rigidity of procedure.


Mr. Frenetie:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for giving hon. members the opportunity to express their opinion on the rules of relevancy you would have the committee follow.
Obviously, I am not an authority on parliamentary procedure, but in view of the reputation enjoyed by the parliament of Canada among the public, I feel it is imperative for us to proceed in an orderly fashion and for the Chair to be recognized as the proper authority concerning our proceedings.
In my opinion, it is unthinkable that every time you seek to restrict an hon. member to the matter under consideration, the member in question should rise to argue with you and then keep on with his remarks as if nothing had happened.
I am of the opinion that the authority of the Chair must be respected by all members, and we now have a golden opportunity to

prove, not only our maturity, but also our intention to work in the interest of the Canadian people.
I agree wholeheartedly with your decision.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak on the same subject-


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: The point raised has been well discussed and well aired, and perhaps the result of the discussion would seem to indicate that the Chair was on the right track from the start. However, at this point I should not like to make a general ruling, and the ruling that the Chair was attempting to make or was suggesting to the hon. member was that his remarks should not be directed to the conduct of an hon. member individually. I am sure he will want to abide by this ruling of the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I think I can come within the terms of your ruling in this way. I want to ask this question. Was the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-I am not talking about him personally-a front for the government?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Government members say no. We would like to hear them on that point. Were government members getting leaks from the committee during the course of the committee's sittings?


Grant Deachman: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is rising on a question of privilege.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, today I indicated very clearly to Mr. Speaker in the house that I had not been in contact with anyone in connection with this matter, and the story which I prepared I prepared myself and I released it to the press for publication after the house had opened.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Grant Deachman: It was given to the press only after the committee had concluded its hearings.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would suggest that we might allow the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to state his question of privilege very briefly, and I will allow the hon. member for Bow River to state his point of order briefly.


Grant Deachman: I am accused by the hon. member of being a front for other people, of having been in connivance and collusion with other people in connection with the story. I want to repeat again what I said to Mr. Speaker in the house today, that I wrote the story myself, that I did so without getting in touch with any other members of the committee at any time and at no time did I have anything to do with anyone connected with the committee, with parliament or with the Prime Minister's office in connection with the story.


An hon. Member:: How much did you get paid for it?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. In my opinion there is no question of privilege, but a denial of a statement by the hon. member for Bow River. To my mind both the denial and the statement are out of order because they involve a discussion of the private conduct of an hon. member which should not be a subject of discussion in committee of supply at this stage.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I never made any charge against the hon. member. I asked a question of the government and that is what makes my remarks relevant and within the terms of your ruling. I will proceed to ask the question again. Was the hon. member a front? Was he in communication with cabinet ministers while the committee was sitting? Was the hon. member getting his inspiration from the government in this regard?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member said he is not making a charge, and I cannot deny that, but he is certainly making an insinuation. The Chair tries to stay out of the debate if at all possible, but certainly the hon. member would seem to be going against the spirit of the ruling of the Chair by using those words.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe the answer to the whole question I have raised can be found by looking closely at the article itself, which deals with what was discussed in the flag committee. At the beginning of the article it says:
Interim Supply
The Commons flag committee has completed its six-weeks task and this afternoon submitted its findings to the house.
One of its Liberal members, Grant Deachman, reveals in this frank report how the committee worked and arrived at its final decision.
Without any reservations whatsoever we know the hon. member disclosed the facts of the committee, the evidence of the committee, the report of the committee before the chairman of that committee could disclose those facts by a report filed in the House of Commons.
There were leaks throughout the time this flag committee was operating. Where did they come from? Did they come from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, or from other members that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra talked to-and I am talking about Liberal members? We have just to take a look at what he said is the inside story. He said he wrote this a little time after the committee had made out its report. It is a strange thing. He may be speedy on a typewriter, or he may be a speedy writer, but he whirled out practically everything the committee had done a few minutes after the committee made its decision-


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest the hon. member is discussing the very matters which the Chair has ruled are not relevant in the discussion on interim supply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I take it you are ruling the facts I have been setting out in this debate are out of order, and I would like to appeal your ruling.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure the hon. member realizes the position of the Chair. The Chair has suggested to the hon. member that he cannot discuss the personal conduct of another hon. member, and I am sure the hon. member for Bow River recognizes this ruling. Any comments that he makes which seem to infringe against that rule cannot be allowed to pass without the hon. member being called to order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Sir, with the greatest respect to you, I have been in this house since 1958 and I have never asked to appeal any chairman's or Speaker's ruling, but this afternoon I ask to appeal your ruling in this regard so that I can continue my remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman-

Division


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Bow River appeals from the Chair's ruling. The hon. member for Villeneuve may have the floor after report has been made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the chair and put the question as follows:
In committee of supply when a vote to provide for interim supply was being considered the Chair ruled that a discussion on the actions of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra in connection with the flag committee was not in order. Whereupon the hon. member for Bow River appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


["Order. The hon. member for Bow River appeals from the Chair's ruling. The hon. member for Villeneuve may have the floor after report has been made.", 'Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the chair and put the question as follows:\nIn committee of supply when a vote to provide for interim supply was being considered the Chair ruled that a discussion on the actions of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra in connection with the flag committee was not in order. Whereupon the hon. member for Bow River appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.']
Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had	
I voted I would chairman's ruling.	have voted to confirm the
[Translation]


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired; otherwise I would have voted in favour of your	
ruling.	
[Text]


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I was	
paired. Had I voted I would have voted to confirm the chairman's ruling.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I was calling on the pairs. I have to announce the result of the vote, and I declare the ruling confirmed.
And the house having resumed in committee:


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I had a question of privilege while you were in the chair.


Jay Waldo Monteith: So they are breaking all the rules again.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. My understanding of the rules is that the chairman was in the Chair as the Speaker only for the purpose of the appeal from the ruling of the chairman. There was nothing before the house so that the Chairman must resume the chair in committee of supply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman-and you are the chairman now-I would say this. I had a question of privilege to raise while you were in the chair, and under the rules a question of privilege must be made at the soonest possible moment. This has been denied by your walking away from the Chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would suggest to the hon. member, and I respect his experience, that the way to do this would be to ask that the committee rise, and when the Speaker is in the Chair at that moment raise his question of privilege. But certainly there is nothing for the Chair to do at this point except to resume committee of supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The committee had risen and reported progress, Mr. Chairman, and the Speaker was in the chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that the committee had not risen and reported progress.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then how could the Speaker be in the chair if the committee of the whole house was still in session? That is impossible.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not pretend this comes from me but I am advised by the table that this is governed by standing order 59 (4) and is the standing practice. In any event, the chairman never reports progress when going into the chair on an appeal to the house. The hon. member for Bow River has the floor now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I will raise this question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, while you are in the chair as chairman. In view of the question of privilege which was raised this afternoon while the Speaker was in the chair,
I would move this motion. In view of the breach of privilege of this house by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra by disclosing certain facts in the report of the flag committee to a newspaper before the same report 20220-605J
Interim Supply
was filed in the house, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre:
That the action of the hon. member be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections to take such action in reference to the said member as may be necessary.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the hon. member realizes the situation, since he was rather anxious that the chairman of the committee remain in the chair. The ruling of the Chair must be that the time to raise this question of privilege would be with the Speaker in the chair, and the way to do this would be to move that the committee adjourn. If that motion were carried the Speaker would be in the chair and the question of privilege could then be raised. The hon. member knows that under standing order 59 (2) the committee is bound by its terms of reference, and the terms of reference of the committee certainly do not include a question of privilege such as this. Therefore I would have to rule that the question of privilege cannot be entertained at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I say this. I as a member, and I am sure this party as a whole, would not want to delay this committee on a matter of procedure, so I will make this motion at the first opportunity when the Speaker is in the chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair appreciates the co-operation of the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now, Mr. Chairman, if I understand your ruling I cannot discuss at this time the actions of the individual himself regarding his disclosure to the press of certain facts with reference to the flag committee. I should now like to change the tone of the discussion for a few moments. When the flag committee sat, it sat in camera. What took place at the meetings of that committee should be known only to those members and not disclosed outside that committee by an individual member, whom I will not name at this time. What has taken place is extremely improper and may jeopardize all future committees. It was agreed by that committee that not only would it sit in camera but that any report to be made of its proceedings would be made by the chairman of the committee rather than by individual members. The failure of a member to live and abide by that committee's procedures and rules is a violation of the rules of the committee. If we allow that improper procedure to go unnoticed, then individual members or groups of members of future committees will be able to make statements

Interim Supply
to newspapers before the committee has made its report to the House of Commons, and therefore any approach-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member must realize that the decision he now is faced with is no longer a simple ruling of the chairman but a decision of the House of Commons. I ask the hon. member to respect that decision.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the fact you are now suggesting that I cannot discuss any aspect of this matter I will abide by your ruling and resume my place.


Mr. Plourde:: I shall be very brief, Mr. Chairman, because I would not want the passage of interim supply to be delayed indefinitely. There are three clear and simple points I wish to bring to the attention of the government.
Here is the first one. The government should undertake to eliminate slums in our cities through a well-defined program and, with the co-operation of the provinces, to renovate the blighted areas in our cities, following agreements with town planning councils, so that once the program is fully carried out, everything would look wonderful.
Blighted and unhealthy areas such as those exist in Quebec and Montreal. But those homes should also be given all the comfort required: enough room, good lighting, easy maintenance, sufficient space in which to put the car and also for the children to play.
Rents should be truly reasonable and within the means of small wage earners because until now the government has never considered such a program. Instead, it has used poultices to meet the needs and has built so-called low rental units but you should see what they call low rents.
Such a housing project called Les patios has been carried out in my riding under that federal legislation; they have the crust to ask $85 a month and over for rent. The units are badly built so that they are exceedingly warm in summer and very cold in winter.
A special credit provided by the Bank of Canada at very low interest rates-equivalent to service costs-should be made available for the rehabilitation of the blighted areas in our cities. That would get the provinces and municipalities interested in the restoration of such areas.
We could, in this fashion, relieve the distress and poverty which exist even in this 20th century. We would, at the same time, be helping the aged with small incomes and

those workers who fail to adapt themselves to present day conditions either because they are too young to retire or too old to be classified as readaptable in the labour market.
By rebuilding certain parts of our cities, we would develop the labour market and, by so doing, reduce unemployment, all the while using our materials which abound in this great Canada of ours.
The second point I should like to bring to the attention of this committee is the urgent matter of railway crossings in the old Quebec capital. It is a continuous hazard for car drivers and for all the people of that city and I think that in that regard, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) would only have to refer to the remarks of my hon. colleague from Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) to ascertain how easy it would be to carry out such a change.
I take this opportunity to read into the record a request which came to me from the Quebec and district labour council. A copy was sent to the Minister of Transport, the mayor of Quebec city, the Speaker of the Senate, hon. members for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin), Quebec East, Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux), myself and also to the presidents of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R.
Sir,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a resolution passed by our council at its last regular
meeting.	.	,
The object of the said resolution is to protest against the many grade crossings existing in the old capital city. We believe that such a situation is indeed an unnecessary shortcoming and that it represents a continuous hazard for the car drivers and the whole people of Quebec city.
The whole matter is submitted to your attention and in advance, we thank you for all you could do to remedy such a deplorable situation.
Yours very truly,
The Quebec and District Labour Council by Therese Belleau corresponding secretary
The third point I wish to raise in this house, concerns the Minister of Transport and has to do with the Quebec piloting office.
For many years those workers have been called upon to work overtime for which they are paid one month and a half later. But this year many employees are complaining that they have not yet received their salaries for overtime done in June and which should have been paid on August 15, overtime done in July which should have been paid on September 15 and overtime done in August which should have been paid on October 15.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport to give us the reasons for and cause of

this delay in paying overtime. Does it mean that the department has no money available to pay its employees? This is apparently not the case, since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) told us on many occasions that the country was in a very healthy financial situation.


Mr. Stefanson:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speakers from all sides of this house who have taken part in the debate on interim supply, and particularly to those who have dealt with the operations and policies of the C.B.C. At the present time we are being asked to vote $740 million to carry forward the government's program for the next two months. That is a large sum of money. At the end of the period for which we are being asked to vote this money, the government will have operated through interim supply for a period of nine months. There is an indication now that it does not believe the session will conclude before the end of this year. That is a clear indication of bungling inefficiency. This session has now become the longest on record. The government should not be proud of that fact, because its achievements are few.


Mr. Byrne:: Tory filibustering.


Eric Stefanson: That is an example of the usual contribution of the hon. member for Kootenay East. All he ever does is make the odd interruption from his seat.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Not always.


Eric Stefanson: There has been criticism from members on all sides of the house about some of the programs produced and sponsored by the C.B.C. To listen to the hon. member for Halifax who spoke the other night one would think that anybody who criticizes or raises any complaint against the C.B.C. is committing a sin. It appears to me that members like him have attempted to set up the C.B.C. as some sort of sacred cow against which no one must breathe a word of criticism at any time.


Mr. Nesbitt:: A goldplated sacred cow.


Eric Stefanson: During the past few weeks several members have questioned certain actions by the C.B.C. involving certain programs and also the allotment of free time to various political parties. I feel these are valid complaints and in my opinion they are not an attempt to interfere with the C.B.C. During the past few weeks members of parlia-
Interim Supply
ment, and no doubt the management of the C.B.C., have received complaints about the caliber of certain programs, especially the effect they may have on morality. Those in charge of programming always point out that you cannot please everyone, that what some people object to other people approve. This is quite true. However, I would hope that the management of the C.B.C. would take heed of these complaints.
Several members have expressed the view that there is a need for controversial programming. This may be true. However, I would think that a program such as the C.B.C. presented last Sunday night when they interviewed the American nazi, Mr. Rockwell, is the type of program they should refrain from producing. I do not believe that the people of Canada favour spending the taxpayer's money on such programs. Several members have discussed programs and have offered some criticism while others have discussed the administration and financing of the C.B.C.
Parliament is being asked to grant a sum of money in the neighbourhood of $88 million to enable the corporation to carry on for the current year. The amount required from parliament for the corporation to carry on becomes increasingly larger each year. This is something which should be scrutinized and checked by parliament. It is true that the officials of the corporation appeared before the public accounts committee in July of this year. In that regard I would point out that on June 18 a motion was moved and passed In the committee in these terms:
That the public accounts committee call officials of the C.B.C. before the committee in order to examine into the accounts of the corporation including the extent to which the recommendations of the Auditor General and the Glassco commission have been implemented.
At that time the chairman of the committee added these words:
We should add to that the fact that we are engaged in dealing with the Auditor General's report on the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962, and March 31, 1963. This gives us a framework for our inquiry which is, in this particular instance, not a broadcasting inquiry but an inquiry into the financial and organizational aspects of the C.B.C. within the framework of these terms of reference.
From this one can see that the terms of reference were quite limited. They allowed for discussion of the 1962-63 annual report of the corporation, but this report deals only with finished business. It would have been much more beneficial and much more interesting if we could have dealt with current busi-

Interim Supply
ness. Many members have suggested that the government should appoint a special committee to look into all aspects of the operations of the C.B.C. I support these suggestions and urge the government to appoint such a committee at an early date.
It has been pointed out that the C.B.C. was originally established by the government headed by the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. The C.B.C. is at present under severe criticism and there are some signs that there may have been government interference. Examples of this are found in the incident when the Minister of Transport seemed to force his way into appearing on television last summer and also in the handling of the so-called "Mr. Pearson" film. These things have left doubts in the minds of Canadians about the independence of the C.B.C. and are further reasons why a special committee on broadcasting should be set up. The hon. member for Cartier also raised the question of the legality of producing a certain program, and this too should be clarified.
I believe that the record of the C.B.C. over the years is good. However, I wish to point out that in my opinion the C.B.C., with its radio and television networks, is the most powerful instrument in Canada and if it is misused it can be used to make or break individuals. I trust that the management of the corporation will at all times be free from political interference and will live up to the aims and objectives originally laid down.
The hon. member for Churchill spoke about the need for an extension of service. He referred to the need for the extension of both radio and television services to cover the northland. I also wish to say a few words about the need for extension of service. I represent a riding which is in the centre of Manitoba and right in the heart of Canada. Many people in the area I represent either have no television reception or receive it on a hit or miss basis.
Over the years I have received many petitions and letters requesting improved television service for the people of the interlake area. I have pleaded with C.B.C. officials to take action to provide this service. I believe that one of the aims and objectives of the C.B.C. is to make radio and television service available to all Canadians. I must confess I am disappointed that a greater effort has not been made in this regard. The hon. member for Churchill pointed out that in 1961, after the committee on broadcasting had met, we were led to believe that within three years 98 per cent of the population of
[Mr. Stefanson.l
Canada would have these services available. However, on reading the annual report of the C.B.C. for 1964-65 it would now appear that it may take 10 years to provide these services. This is not fair to the people concerned. The hon. member for Churchill made out a strong case for the people he represents and pointed out that at least 50 per cent of these people have no television service whatsoever while the other 50 per cent only have canned television.
Since I became a member of the house in 1958 I have made representations to the various ministers to whom the C.B.C. has reported and to officials of the C.B.C. about the situation with regard to television reception in the interlake area. I want to review very briefly the history of the C.B.C. television station in Winnipeg. CBWT, Winnipeg, began operations in May, 1954, on channel 4 with an antenna height of 192 feet. A height limitation was imposed because of the proximity of the tower, which was right on Portage avenue, to the Winnipeg airport. At the time channel 4 was assigned to Winnipeg by the Department of Transport it was the best channel available with maximum fringe area coverage.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being five o'clock, in order to permit the house to consider private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.


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



Gilles Grégoire: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report prepared by officials of the Department of Finance concerning federal expenditures in each of the provinces of Canada.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, at this time, we are discussing, or rather asking for the tabling of papers by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). Unfortunately I notice that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is not in his seat nor is his parliamentary secretary.
Yet, we are dealing with the tabling of papers concerning them and I am surprised that neither of them is here, especially as

I have evidence which will show how very important it is that these papers should be produced.
As you will remember, on Friday, August 7 last, I mentioned in this house figures on the amount of taxes of all kinds the province of Quebec would be paying and what it would be getting in return, compared with the other provinces. Those figures seem to have stirred the interest of all members, since they were referred to afterwards by a large number of members and ministers and became the subject of more than one debate. So meaningful were the figures I quoted that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) even though fit to put forward his views and, as can be seen on page 6532 of Hansard, in the left column, he said:
I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) will in due time set the record straight and that the experts of his department will give us exact figures in keeping with the facts, which will definitely prove that the province of Quebec has, and will always have, everything to gain by remaining within confederation.
These figures were to be given us by the Minister of Finance.
The words I referred to were from the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
We asked for that report and we are still waiting for it.
Further on, same page, same column, with regard to the figures I had quoted on the amounts collected in taxes, or taxes paid by Quebec to Ottawa, and on what Ottawa could give in return to Quebec from those taxes, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, because so many hon. members had been shocked by those figures, saw fit to add these words:
I say that those figures are wrong-
And if the hon. member for Lotbiniere stated that those figures were wrong, it was because he found them shocking, as indeed they were.
He went on:
I say that those figures are wrong, and that in due time, the Minister of Finance will reveal the true situation, as regards the taxes collected by the federal government in the province of Quebec and the redistribution of those taxes in that province.
Well, the Minister of Finance did not provide us with those documents. He announced in his speech of August 7, 1964-he thought it fit to speak about it himself-that experts of his department were making an inquiry, compiling reports and would provide the house with those papers.
Three weeks ago, a paper stated those figures would not be published because that
Motions for Papers
could lead to a sort of revolt among the people of Quebec, as the figures were so prejudicial to the province of Quebec. They were not made known to us and that is why we move today this motion for papers.
We ask the Minister of Finance to bring in the report of his experts, and to bring in those documents on the amount of taxes collected in each province and the amount given back by Ottawa to each province. The Minister of Finance has this information but he refuses to give it to us.
Now, all the figures we can quote can only bear out what we have been saying from time to time to the effect that in this confederation at the present time some provinces are neglected in comparison with others.
Just recently we discussed the Department of Trade and Commerce estimates. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) had published his estimates in which I found something really amazing.
The Department of Trade and Commerce is one of the most important departments and, on a total budget of $83,037,540 for the year 1964-65 as can be seen at the bottom of page 436 of the bluebook for the year ending March 31, 1965:
Special: Payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves and payments in connection with the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act; total, $46,700,000.
Out of total estimates of $83,037,000, the Department of Trade and Commerce spends $46,700,000, that is nearly 55 per cent, in the three western provinces only.
I have no objection to their receiving $46 million to assist western wheat producers, but when an equal share is not given to farmers or producers of other goods in the province of Quebec, when the Department of Trade and Commerce does not assist the other provinces, but only these three small provinces, while the other provinces pay just as much in taxes, then I have an objection.
If the Minister of Finance will not quote figures, while we quote some, then he has no right to state, as he did on August 7 last, that our figures are wrong and that we quote erroneous figures.
I can see that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in his seat. It is a fact that out of $83 million spent by his department, $46 million are earmarked for the wheat item for the three prairie provinces.

Motions for Papers
Why not appropriate a further amount for agriculture in eastern Canada, in the maritime provinces, in the province of Quebec, in the province of Ontario?
I already quoted figures on November 12, 1963. On August 7 we were dealing with the figures provided by Mr. K. W. Taylor, and yet the Minister of Finance said that these figures were erroneous. Today I am quoting figures included in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
On November 12, 1963, as reported on page 4636 of Hansard, in the left-hand column, I started referring to all the reports of the various departments, agencies, and crown corporations. With supporting figures, I showed what Quebec was getting per capita in comparison with the other provinces. For the Department of Forestry, I mentioned for instance the annual report of this department for 1962. We were then in 1963, and I pointed out that out of a total amount of $11 million paid by the federal government with respect to forest surveys and reforestation the province of Quebec received nothing.
In the field of forest fire protection, Quebec received $1,200,000 out of a total of $8,123,000, or less than 18 per cent of the total amount of the grants.
I was also mentioning Quebec's share of the loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation and I was saying that, at that time, Saskatchewan was getting over 16 times the number of loans granted in the province of Quebec, and Alberta nine times more than Quebec.
On that same date I mentioned the expenditures of the Post Office Department and by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the field of hospital insurance.
I also dealt with the report entitled "Technical and Vocational Education in Canada", and I pointed out that Quebec had received at that time only $25 million compared to Ontario's $200 million.
I was quoting a series of reports. In fact, they practically covered four pages of Hansard, with figures showing that in every field Quebec was not getting its share, except in the field of unemployment insurance, and that is because there is more unemployment in that province at the present time.
After quoting all those figures or reports from various departments or crown corporations, we were told that we would be supplied with the real figures.
On August 7, 1964, we again asked for some explanation about the inadequate distribution
[Mr. Gregoire.I
of federal expenditures throughout the country or in every province. We quoted once again figures provided by a federal civil servant. At that time many Liberal members rose to say that our figures were incorrect; some even said that the Minister of Finance would supply the correct statistics.
We are now asking the Minister of Finance to supply them, since he stated that for the past several months his departmental experts were preparing a report containing all those figures. This report is now ready. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance said himself that he had a copy in his office.
When the question of this report was brought up, the Minister of Finance being absent from the house, another minister declared that the report was ready but that it had not been submitted to the cabinet. This was three weeks ago, and we would like to see that report, for we are entitled to those figures inasmuch as they will indicate clearly what this confederation represents to each province, what the Ottawa administration is, in short, just how favours are distributed, if the expression may be used, between the federal government and the various provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) objects to the use of the word favour. But when the minister or the officials of a department allot 55 per cent of a budget to the storage or payment of grain in three provinces, leaving only 45 per cent to the other seven provinces, of which two are the most heavily populated in Canada, I say favours are granted to certain provinces as compared with the others.
I repeat that we are not opposed to these three provinces receiving $46 million, as long as the other provinces also receive a reasonable share, a portion of what they are entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, if these figures were given to the people, if the Department of Finance disclosed the true situation in that field, that is if it published what each province pays in income tax, sales tax, succession duties, indirect taxes, etc., and how much the federal government has spent in each province, then the federal government would perhaps make a self-examination and say: Perhaps there has been poor administration and maybe the provinces complaining about confederation have a right to do so.
When those figures are published, it will be possible to detect past mistakes and then attempts could be made to rectify them and to improve the allocation of taxes and funds

paid by Canadian taxpayers. Then the people might have a different reaction about confederation.
Mr. Speaker, those figures exist. We think that they should be provided, and this is the reason why we have introduced the motion under consideration.
The Department of Finance should not be ashamed to publish those figures. If they are to the advantage of Quebec or another province, then the necessary steps could be taken to improve the situation or to set the facts straight as soon as these facts are known. But as long as we do not receive these figures from the Department of Finance, we shall continue to declare that the ones which we quoted on November 12, 1963, as is evidenced by Hansard of that date, as well as those we read into Hansard on August 7 last, and as long as the Minister of Finance will not bring forth the report of his experts, we shall keep maintaining that the figures we quoted are accurate and must be accepted as such.
The figures we submitted establish beyond any doubt that the province of Quebec is paying in taxes over $600 million more than it is receiving, while other provinces draw up to $300 million more than what they are paying in taxes.
Mr. Speaker, some members doubted our figures were correct. The Minister of Finance was so astonished by those figures that he has seen fit to have an inquiry made and a report prepared by the experts of his department. That report is now completed and we ask that it be tabled. We are making that request with no ill intent, but because we feel that, when those figures are known, the Minister of Finance will feel even more compelled to correct the situation, which could only benefit the whole country.


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: In rising to reply to the hon. member for Lapointe may I respectfully suggest that the hon. member dealt with the issue set forth in the motion in a somewhat distant and indifferent manner. I would suggest also that it would be profitable to look at the exchange which took place between myself and the hon. member for Lapointe when he moved his motion yesterday as reported at page 9515 of Hansard. The hon. member moved:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report prepared by officials of the Department of Finance concerning federal expenditures in each of the provinces of Canada.
Motions for Papers
To this, I replied as follows:
I should say that there is no such report as suggested in the motion. At the same time I should add that work has been done by the officials and is continuing to provide information for the minister with which to answer the large number of questions which have been asked on this subject matter. In view of the circumstances I would respectfully invite the hon. member to withdraw the motion.
Then the hon. member for Lapointe replied, in turn:
Mr. Speaker, the report we would like to have tabled is the one which the Minister of Finance promised October 7 last when he denied certain figures mentioned in the motion. We believe the Minister of Finance could at least table what he promised us on October 7 last.
My answer to that was as follows:
I am not aware of the precise answer given by the minister but I respectfully suggest that the hon. member put his question upon the order paper and I undertake to see that it is given attention.
This offer was rejected by the hon. member for Lapointe, who went on to say that these were not privileged documents and that the Minister of Finance had undertaken to communicate this material to the house at an appropriate time. The hon. member added:
If those documents are too incriminating for the government, let him say so.
I replied with respect to that observation:
I do not want to enter into a debate with the hon. member but I cannot accept the suggestion that there is anything compromising in the position of the Minister of Finance.
It seems to me that this motion arises out of a misunderstanding, an honest misunderstanding, on the part of the hon. member of what the Minister of Finance said during the debate on August 7 last. The Minister of Finance did not undertake to table any official report. What he did say to the house was that he was preparing answers to the many questions which had been raised on the subject of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. In the course of a debate in which the hon. member for Lapointe played a conspicuous part, my minister said this would mean a great deal of work for the department but they were persisting in their efforts and would table the information.
In the interest of precision may I put on record the exact words used by the Minister of Finance during the debate on August 7? I now refer to page 6552 of Hansard for that date. My hon. friend said:
There is one other point on which I would ask the house to bear with me if I reply to it in detail. It is in connection with the figures which were read into the record last night by the hon. member-

Motions for Papers
Then, later, in the course of the same debate, the minister made these remarks, as reported at page 6554. Again I quote:
The Department of Finance has made a detailed study of the expenditures and finds it can allocate approximately 40 per cent of gross federal expenditures to provinces by residence of recipient. This includes social security payments made directly to individuals, and various payments made to provincial governments and provincial institutions. Another 16 per cent of our expenditures can be roughly allocated by provinces on the basis of the location of the works on which they are spent or the service which they are spent or the service which they are used to provide. When these are eliminated this leaves about 44 per cent of the gross expenditures for items which cannot be said to be paid for the benefit of people in any particular province, and these can only be distributed arbitrarily, for example, on the basis of population.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the very nub of the point raised by the hon. member for Lapointe. I quote again from the remarks of the Minister of Finance as reported on page 6554 of Hansard for August 7:
Time has only permitted the department to make a detailed study of this nature for the year 1961-62. We shall provide the details of these figures in answer to the questions to which I have referred.
I have read and reread the statement of the Minister of Finance during the debate on August 7, and nowhere can I find an undertaking by the Minister of Finance that he would put a parliamentary report before this house on matters relating to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member agree to my putting on the record another statement from the same speech of the Minister of Finance which he has not quoted and which it is important should be quoted for the record? Would the hon. member accept another quotation-just five lines -from the same speech of the minister on the same day. He said:

The Department of Finance endeavoured to allocate fairly as much as it could of the federal revenues, by provinces, for the year 1961-62. This endeavour has been taking place over the last several months. I may say the departmental officials have been struggling with this problem for quite some time.
It is in that speech that the Minister of Finance said that for several months the officials of his department have been making an analysis and a distribution of federal receipts and expenditures amongst the provinces.
It is the report of that work carried out by the experts of the Department of Finance

to which the minister referred in his speech that we would like to have tabled in the house today.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the quotation read by the hon. member does not disturb one bit the position I have taken on this matter; and again I point out that no reference is made by the minister to the fact that he would table any parliamentary report or reports such as this.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I never suggested that the Minister of Finance would table such a report. I said that such a report does exist, since the Minister of Finance himself referred to it in his speech of August 7.
I think the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance should not distort my remarks. I never suggested that the Minister of Finance had undertaken to table that report, but that he had said that such a report did exist and that it would be tabled. That is a different thing.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I beg to differ with the hon. member for Lapointe and would refer to the precise words he used on October 28, yesterday, when he said, as reported at page 9515 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the report we would like to have tabled is the one which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) promised October 7-
That is a direct allegation in the house that the Minister of Finance had promised such a report. As I said, I have read and reread the statement the Minister of Finance made on that occasion, and nowhere did he undertake or promise to the house that he would table a parliamentary report on this subject. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that the position of the government has at all times been consistent on this matter. I might say that the hon. member for Lapointe was neither the first nor the foremost member of this house to raise this question because the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) brought this matter to the attention of the house a few days ago. At that time the question was dealt with by the Acting Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). This occurred on October 9 and the passage is to be found at

page 8918 of Hansard. At that time the Acting Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, informed the house that a study was being undertaken by the department in order to answer a large number of questions that had been placed on the order paper. In the course of his remarks he stated:
Mr. Speaker, the question is extremely complicated, and perhaps it would assist the house if I mentioned, for example, that one has to distribute sales tax collected at factories throughout all parts of the country. It would not be fair to say that all the sales tax collected at the factory in province A was paid by the consumers in province A; nor, for the same reason, would customs duties collected, for example, in the port of Montreal be properly attributed as revenues attributable to the province of Quebec, because those customs duties of course are paid by all Canadian consumers of those goods which pass through the port of Montreal. This is the nature of the problem; it is extremely complicated. The Minister of Finance has not seen any figures that have taken into account this redistribution of revenues collected at particular points.
At that time the Acting Minister of Finance indicated that every effort was being made to answer these questions on the order paper. I invite the attention of the hon. member for Lapointe to the fact that only yesterday we tabled an answer to question No. 1,755; a very extensive answer to a very pressing question, which answer covered a large part of the information being sought by the hon. member for Lapointe.
I want to assure the hon. member that I am not indifferent or inconsiderate to his desire to obtain information on this very important and interesting subject to all Canadians. Yesterday I invited the hon. member to put his question on the order paper and said we would make every endeavour to deal with it expeditiously. Apparently the hon. member for Lapointe is not interested in asking specific questions and prefers to rely on figures, as he said today, that he has given in Hansard and which have been demonstrated to be inadequate, and therefore misleading. As a responsible member of the house I can only assume that the hon. member for Lapointe accepts responsibility for relying on those inadequate figures. But, Mr. Speaker, I would go back-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance claims that on several occasions he had asked me to put questions on the order paper in that connection. I must point out that the first time he mentioned that to me was yesterday, and he did so at a time 20220-G06J
Motions for Papers
when notices of motions for production of papers were already in the hands of the order paper editors and accepted for consideration today.
He should not say that he suggested several times that I put questions on the order paper.
I might add that replies to questions put on the order paper are always very vague. I know, because I asked some before.
The answers are very vague and inexplicit. We get only what the minister is willing to let us have. So, today, I am not asking for the same thing. I am asking fer a report that actually exists, because the Minister of Finance himself stated, last August 7, that his department was attempting a distribution of revenue and expenditures by provinces and had been at it for the last several months-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think there is a real point of order. The hon. member disagrees with the parliamentary secretary who has the floor at the present time. It might be a good idea to let him finish, after which the hon. member for Lapointe, if he feels he has been incorrectly quoted, would have the right, according to our standing orders, to take part in the debate once again, or later on, to clear things up.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think, in justice to the hon. member for Lapointe, I should correct myself in saying that on several occasions I had asked him to place his question on the order paper. The hon. member is quite right; I did that on one occasion only, yesterday. I stand corrected on that point, Mr. Speaker, and would so indicate to the hon. member. To come back again to this question of the report, I think we are here dealing with a difference in words and perhaps it is an honest misunderstanding between the hon. member for Lapointe and myself and other members of the department.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would allow one question perhaps we could settle this matter. Does such a report exist now?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question best by saying that as questions have arisen and have been placed on the order paper, the officials of the department have compiled information passed along on memoranda, which was necessary to deal with the large number of questions, the whole school of questions, of a particularly extensive nature; and naturally, more and more information is building up as we keep answering these questions.

Motions for Papers
For instance, let me put before the house one of the questions asked, question 1,755. It reads as follows:
1.	What payments did the federal government make to the province of Quebec during each of the fiscal years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 (estimated) under the following headings, in detail (a) unconditional grants (b) conditional grants (c) payments to individuals (i) unemployment insurance benefits (ii) family allowances (iii) old age security (iv) others?
2.	What is the total amount of all payments made in each of the fiscal years mentioned above?
3.	What is the per capita share paid by the government with respect to each of the above items compared with the per capita share paid to the other nine provinces?
The department has spent literally hundreds of hours on just this one question. And we do not take exception to it. As the house is aware, there is a rule in Beauchesne which says that ministers need not answer questions where an unreasonable amount of time is involved and unnecessary expense placed upon the public. I suggest that the Minister of Finance could properly have taken shelter behind that rule, had it been his desire to avoid answering this type of question, as is suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe. However, the answer to that question was given last Monday and is now available to the hon. member for Lapointe. As I say, I appreciate his interest in the matter and take no exception to the question, but the department has spent hundreds of hours-months-trying to answer all the questions of which that is but one example.
May I bring to the attention of the house question 1,615 which has also been answered:
1.	What was the federal contribution to the province of Prince Edward Island for each of the following fiscal years, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 (estimated) under the following: (a) unconditional grants-itemized (b) conditional grants-itemized (c) payments to individuals (i) unemployment payments (ii) family allowances (iii) old age security (iv) all others?
2.	What is the total amount of all payments for each fiscal year mentioned above?
3.	What is the per capita contribution in each category and how does this compare with the per capita contribution to the other nine provinces?
I might also mention that there was one question on the order paper which asked the government to go back 20 years and to disclose all the payments paid to the provinces and all the revenues collected province by province. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, the problem faced by the Department of Finance. It would be physically impossible for the department to answer all these questions with the staff it has; and the cost to the Canadian taxpayer would be staggering. As I say, Mr. Speaker, we are endeavouring to answer these

questions and have already made a great deal of information available to all hon. members, including the hon. member for Lapointe.
I have made reference to the fact that material has been collected within the department. This material was gathered together to assist the minister in answering questions on the order paper. It is, I suggest, a well established rule that interdepartmental communications by officials to ministers are confidential. This is a very good and sensible rule, Mr. Speaker, and a rule which has been observed in this house for many years.
In that connection-and I do not wish to weaken my argument by repetition-may I refer to one or two precedents. On January 23, 1959-I am sure this is a precedent which will appeal to the hon. member for Lapointe- the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asked for a report of General Graham on civil defence. On that occasion the government took the position that the report was privileged because it was prepared by a member of the public service for the consideration of the government. I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe to note this particularly:	Upon this explanation being
given to the house the motion was not pursued. I have come across at least two occasions in Hansard, in which the hon. member for Lapointe has expressed great admiration for the hon. member for Essex East and his conduct in the house. I again invite him to follow in the footsteps of the hon. member for whom he has professed such great admiration and not to pursue this motion further, in view of the explanation already given the house.
Let me quote one more precedent, Mr. Speaker. On March 12, 1956, as reported at page 2016 of Hansard for that year, the premier of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, then minister of northern affairs, was asked to produce a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government and the superintendent of Banff national park and the constituents of Banff. On that occasion I suggest that the minister correctly stated the well established rule which once more was accepted by the house without debate, that:
Such exchanges are, I believe, cf a privileged character as between officials and the government. I therefore could not acquiesce in that part of the motion.
The minister at that time did table the correspondence whch passed between himself and the citizens but he did not table the information which passed between him and his officials. The house without a vote, ac-

cepted what is a well established precedent both in Westminster and in this house.
So, Mr. Speaker, I end by once more appealing to the good nature of the hon. member for Lapointe. I say to him with unfeigned sincerity that I appreciate his interest and his desire to obtain information on this important subject, and if he places his question on the order paper I shall endeavour to give it immediate attention and have it answered, bearing in mind the great amount of work involved. But I again ask him to withdraw his motion.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughf (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could make an appeal to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to withdraw his motion. I think it is obvious from the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) that no such report exists. The hon. member for Lapointe has pursued his argument very well and has put his case before the house. I think now that the best interests of parliament would be served if he would withdraw his motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed, in reply, to answer the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught), on November 12, 1963, I mentioned figures in this house. At that time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder
whether the procedure followed by the house at present is in order. The Solicitor General asked a question, but on the other hand the hon. member for Lapointe has already contributed to the debate and, according to standing orders, the hon. member cannot speak a second time, except under special circumstances provided for in standing order 37. Nevertheless, if he has the unanimous consent of the house, it may be possible to allow him to answer the suggestion made by the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the Solicitor General, on November 12,	1963, certain
official reports were compiled by various departments and crown corporations. I had given those figures to the house, and they were most instructive. But my figures were said to be incorrect. At that time we were told that we would be given the true figures.
Motions for Papers
On August 7, I again quoted official figures provided by officers of the Department of Finance. Again I was told that my figures were not correct. Even the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) said that my figures were inaccurate. In due course, the Minister of Finance himself, as reported on page 6554 of Hansard, stated that his officials were in the process of allocating expenditures by provinces.
All I want to find out is this. Can we know what work has been done by officials of the Department of Finance, not with respect to question No. 1,755 mentioned a moment ago by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell), but rather concerning the amount of taxes and duties of all kinds collected by the federal government in each province and the amount spent in each province? Could we get detailed information in that respect? That is what we want to know. We are not concerned with replies to other questions which do not deal with the same point.
Is that report ready or is it being prepared? If it is ready, we would like to see it. Otherwise, if it is still being prepared, we would like to know when it will be tabled, since the Minister of Finance has told us that his officials have been working on it for some months now.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to reply, I can only repeat what I said earlier, that the department is collecting a great deal of information to answer all these questions. The hon. member refers to reports. Perhaps he prefers to call them reports. We have been gathering all this material, and memoranda pass back and forth among the officials of the department. This information eventually finds its way into the hands of the minister who answers the questions.
As I pointed out to the hon. member, if we followed his request we would be violating a long established and sensible rule of this house, that correspondence between officials and the minister ought not to be made public. I do not think I need explain why that rule has been followed for such a lengthy period of time. This rule has been accepted by the house and I think it applies to the situation today.
I wish again to emphasize that at no time did the minister undertake to table a parliamentary report, in that sense of the word.

Motions for Papers


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it is not customary -to use the same expression as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance -for the government to make available to the house and to the general public the correspondence exchanged between a minister and government officials.
However, such a statement is a pure and simple admission of the fact that there does exist at present a report on the taxes collected and expenditures made in the various provinces. It means that it would not be proper for the government to give the house information on the correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Finance and his officials.
Mr. Speaker, there is seldom any smoke without fire. We saw in the newspapers that the report existed and proved that, in Quebec, hardly anything is spent as compared with the money spent in the other provinces. When we study the revenues and expenditures of any department at all, we soon see that there are real differences between what is spent in Quebec and what is spent in the other provinces, for instance, Ontario.
This morning, I learned about the expenses incurred by the Canadian National concerning railway crossings. In Ontario, where the population amounts to 6J million, $37 million were spent, whereas in Quebec, where there is a population of 5| million people, $11 million were spent. This means $26 million less in Quebec.
If we look at agriculture, it is the same thing. The federal government gives 25 times more to the other provinces, but it is almost impossible to get a federal farm loan in the province of Quebec. It is useless here to point out that we have provincial loans. The fact remains that it is impossible to get a farm loan from the federal government. Only this afternoon, I received another complaint. Applications from Quebec are driven from pillar to post and nobody is able to find a solution.


An hon. Member:: Right.


David Réal Caouette: Why? In the province of Quebec, there is a provincial farm loans program which is strictly and entirely financed by the citizens of that province, while the latter are also contributing to the federal grants and farm loans. We are paying exactly the same taxes as other Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, those differences are strange. I understand that it is embarrassing for the Minister of Finance to give us this report. He

has it in his hands; it really exists and it annoys the government. I admit that this does not apply only to the present government and that the same situation prevailed under the Conservative administration-


An hon. Member:: Right.


David Réal Caouette: -and under the Liberal administration which preceded that of the Conservatives.


Gilles Grégoire: That is true.


David Réal Caouette: It has always been the same since 1867, since confederation became known as the Canadian confederation.
Mr. Speaker, time and again, we said that our group is not seeking any special treatment, but just and equitable treatment for the population of the province of Quebec.
We are prepared to pay our share and we are prepared to receive what we are entitled to, as a result of payment of our share.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) says that we receive more, whereas the figures compiled show that we pay $600 million in excess of what we receive annually from Ottawa.


Mr. Choquelie:: Produce your figures.


David Réal Caouette: Let the hon. member for Lotbiniere see for himself what is happening in his own riding.


Auguste Choquette: Everything is fine.


David Réal Caouette: We will know about that next week, because I am going there.
Mr. Speaker, it is in the province of Quebec that we find the greatest number of unemployed as well as the greatest number of designated areas, as they are called. It is time to look after our own affairs, and I say this for the information of the hon. member for Lotbiniere who keeps badgering us, on this side of the house. He should co-operate with us in order to obtain for his riding and his province as much equity and justice as we are ready to allow to all the other Canadian provinces.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: There is no question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: He only has the privilege to speak in his turn.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Lotbiniere rises on a question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for
Villeneuve says that I should co-operate with him in order to help my riding. He thus wants to insinuate that I do not work for my constituency. I work for my constituency in co-operation with the ministers and, consequently, it would be worse to co-operate with the hon. member for Villeneuve, and I do not wish to see him in my riding.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about the question of privilege raised by the hon. member. I quoted the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) when he was not in his seat. As reported in Hansard on page 6532, left column, second last paragraph, he said, and I will read this over again for his own information:
I say that those figures are wrong-
He is referring to my figures.
*-and that In due time, the Minister of Finance will reveal the true situation, as regards the taxes collected by the federal government in the province of Quebec and the redistribution of those taxes in that province.
This is what we are asking for and I say that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is not co-operating with the other members to obtain the information requested, and yet he assured us himself that we would get the information.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In my opinion, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere is not in order; the hon. member for Villeneuve should carry on with his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with you. In fact, and as usual, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere is a stupid question which does not in any way constitute a question of privilege.
He is always trying to give himself airs and to make it known that he is in favour of the farmers and the taxpayers in the province of Quebec. However, he is not taken seriously either in his own riding or by the members of his party in the House of Commons.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for Villeneuve is the least serious man in Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the repeated interruptions of the hon. member for Lotbiniere do not frighten me.


Auguste Choquette: Joker.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned with these interruptions because the hon. member for Lotbiniere is aware that his
Motions for Papers
own party, that is the party in office, does not take him seriously. He is considered as a separatist.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, he is considered as anti-logical-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the dispute or the fight between the members, one rising on a question of privilege, the other trying to reply, departs from the subject under consideration. In fact, the only matter under consideration is whether it is in order for the government to table certain documents, and the member who has the floor should merely advise the house whether or not he feels the said documents should be tabled. I would therefore ask him to restrict his remarks to this point and I ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere to recognize that the hon. member for Villeneuve has the floor.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: There is no question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: The Speaker will decide.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, because falsehoods will appear in Hansard tomorrow, and I have the right to correct them. I feel that you should grant me this right under the rules of the house.
Unfounded accusations are being levelled against me. I must point out to the hon. member for Villeneuve that I am highly considered in my party, where a fine solidarity exists, as evidenced by the spontaneous applause now being heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: The opposite situation prevails in his party; it is a divided and a schismatic party.


Gilles Grégoire: What a joker you are.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that there is no question of privilege, but that he is simply disagreeing with the hon. member for Villeneuve. He may, when the hon. member for Villeneuve has concluded his remarks, take part in the debate.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall revert to my remarks-


Auguste Choquette: Social Credit is like an earthworm; you cut it in two and it still lives.

Motions for Papers


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when you state that there is no question of privilege, you do not even take seriously the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who is well known as a public joker, wherever he goes.
I shall therefore conclude my remarks, since I have no more time to lose on him, and I shall resume discussion of the matter-


Auguste Choquette: National jester.


David Réal Caouette: -of the question raised this afternoon.


Auguste Choquette: You are really an international jester.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege, and this is well-founded, according to standing order 17.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Lapointe who intends to rise on a question of privilege, and I should invite the hon. member for Villeneuve to resume his seat while the hon. member for Lapointe rises on a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, there are standing orders in this house; we have a book of standing orders. Now, they provide that when an hon. member wants to speak, he should stand up and take off his hat. The hon. member for Lotbiniere violates those standing orders. I do not say he should take off his hat, because it would fall on his shoulders, or rather, it would not even stand on his shoulders. But he breaks the standing orders of the house when he speaks from his seat and mouths stupidities, as he has been doing for some time.
Therefore, I would ask you to call him back to order and to point out to him that if he intends to speak he must rise and be recognized, which he does not do.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Villeneuve is chewing gum; this is contrary to standing order 12.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I invite the hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and other hon. members, so that we might proceed with the study of the question now before the house.


David Réal Caouette: Let us leave the hon. member for Lotbiniere to his clowning, as usual.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, let him continue to act the buffoon-


Auguste Choquette: You are an interplanetary buffoon.
[Mr. Choquette.l


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I asked the hon. member for Villeneuve to co-operate with the Chair and to accept my suggestion that he should confine his remarks to the motion under consideration, and I am sure that he will do so.


Gilles Grégoire: You should also call to order the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will respect your ruling, but I would like you to call the hon. member for Lotbiniere to order, because he is always interrupting us.
Coming back to the matter under discussion with regard to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Lapointe asking for the production of papers showing the moneys collected and spent in the provinces, I feel that the hon. member for Lapointe is not talking through his hat. He knows what he is talking about, because he is aware that such a report exists.
In addition, we read in the papers a report which was denied of course by the Minister of Finance, to the effect that the minister is very much annoyed at the report submitted by his high officials and which points out that for a very long time the province of Quebec has not been treated as it should.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it is not only the present administration which is to blame; the previous one carries its share of the responsibility.
The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was in office for six years and, during that time, not only do we feel that less money was spent in Quebec, but the money collected there was used to pay western farmers, at election time, to nab people's votes, to try to win seats. This was done on three occasions.
Now, today we are insisting, and we shall keep on insisting, that the motion for papers proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe be implemented. Even if it is rejected, we shall keep on demanding the tabling of those documents, not at the country's expense, but to find out exactly what is going on.
If the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) tells us that it is not the procedure or the custom to make public communications between officials and ministers, we believe that the people who pay the taxes in Canada, that the citizens of the province of Quebec and the other provinces who pay federal taxes, have the right to know the truth as far as taxation is concerned, and the whole truth. I do not think that one should play hide and seek, as has been done before and as they are trying to do at this time.

Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hour
assigned for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A it is my duty to inform the house that the following questions will be raised at ten o'clock:
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis), Canadian coastguard service.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Canada pension plan.

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



[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Eric Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted at five o'clock I was speaking on the need for extension of television service, and in particular on the need to make this service available to the interlake area of Manitoba. I had just begun to outline the history of the C.B.C. station in Winnipeg.
Station CBWT Winnipeg began operation in May 1954 on channel 4, with an antenna height of 192 feet, this height limitation being imposed because of its proximity to the Winnipeg airport. At that time channel 4, assigned to Winnipeg by the Department of Transport, was the best channel available to give maximum fringe area coverage. In July 1954 KXJB-TV, Valley City, North Dakota, went into operation on the same channel with a transmitter located only 192 air miles from Winnipeg, at a power of 100 kilowatts and tower heights of 1,090 feet. This resulted in considerable co-channel interference in the area north and south of Winnipeg.
Following a study of the problem, the C.B.C. decided to make a change from channel 4 to channel 3. This channel was selected
Interim Supply
since it entailed no change in the existing transmitter and antenna. This is what the C.B.C. said. Another consideration favouring the choice of channel 3 at that time was the fact that receiver antennae in fringe reception areas of CBWT would be almost as effective on channel 3 as they had been on channel 4. CBWT changed to channel 3 with a power of 57.8 kilowatts on April 16, 1958. However, people living beyond the A aid contour area had to purchase new antennae, and I have personal experience of this as my home is at Gimli, Manitoba, approximately 50 miles north of Winnipeg, and we could not operate with the former antenna. The limitation of power and tower height also meant that CBWT's coverage was correspondingly limited.
After the change took place from channel 4 to channel 3 the reception in most places north of Winnipeg became worse. The C.B.C. had assured everyone that this change would bring about better reception, but actually it was worse than ever before. This is the television service we are still getting today.
Following this changeover and the subsequent deterioration in t.v. reception I again pleaded the case for the need of improvement of t.v. services in the interlake area, and the C.B.C. advised me as follows:
Because of the heavy demands on capital budget due to general extension of the national service in t.v. and radio, no provision could be made to improve CBWT's coverage until 1962, when an application would be made to increase the power and move to a new transmitter location with an antenna 1,027 feet effective height above average terrain.
When it was learned that the C.B.C. planned these changes the people in the interlake area took it for granted that television service would now be made available to them. Subsequently they learned that the C.B.C. had a site selected at Starbuck, Manitoba, which is south of Winnipeg and therefore not likely to bring about substantial improvement in television reception for the interlake area.
Subsequently the C.B.C. made application for an increase in the effective radiated power, a change in channel and a change of antenna site for station CBWT. This application was heard by the board of broadcast governors in April 1962. The people of the interlake area organized and presented a brief requesting that the antenna be located at Argyle, Manitoba, which is an area north of interlake. At the hearing Mr. Joe Karsin, of Arborg, Manitoba, presented the brief and answered questions relating to it. I have a transcript of the

Interim Supply
hearing that was held and will make some reference to it. I may say this is sessional paper 129A.
The feeling of the people in the interlake area was if the antenna were located north of Winnipeg it would serve all the interlake district. It would appear that there is little cooperation between the Department of Transport and the C.B.C. It now appears that most of the land within 25 miles north of Winnipeg is restricted to antenna heights which would not be suitable. This is most unfortunate and does not make for good planning. Subsequently the board of broadcast governors approved the application for the Starbuck site.
During the hearing, officials of the C.B.C. indicated their reason for wanting the Star-buck site was because it would serve a heavier populated area than the Argyle site. This, they said, was their only reason. By locating at Starbuck, the so-called "B contour" will reach 20 miles into the United States. The area south of Winnipeg is served by the private station CJOY, Winnipeg, whose antenna is located at Ste. Agathe, Manitoba. The southwestern part of the province is served by Brandon, and there is a station just inside the U.S. border at Pembina. People in this part of Manitoba will have several choices of t.v. station, while people in the northern part of the interlake area will still be without television.
I maintain that the principle adopted here by the C.B.C. is wrong. It should have been its first duty to provide service to the people who at present are excluded. Every taxpayer in Canada is a shareholder in the C.B.C. and every shareholder is entitled to equal service.
I have asked questions in the house with regard to this changeover and wish to make brief reference to them. The questions are to be found at page 1218 of the 1963 Hansard and 2707 of Hansard for April 29, 1964. In the first question, I asked:
1.	Did the B.B.G. approve a C.B.C. application for an increase in the effective radiated power, a change in channel, and a change of antenna site, of station CBWT, Winnipeg, Manitoba?
The answer was yes. In the second part of the question I asked:
2.	If so, when was approval given and what changes are proposed in regard to video, audio, channel and antenna?
The answer to that part was:
The application was for an increase in effective radiated power from 57,800 watts ERP (video), 34,700 watts ERP (audio), to 100,000 watts ERP (video), 50,000 watts ERP (audio), a change in channel from channel 3 to channel 6 and an increase in the effective height above average terrain from 196 feet to 1,027 feet. The board's recom-

mendation for the approval of this application was contained in its public announcement of April 18, 1962.
One of the questions I asked was:
What site was chosen for the location of the new antenna; when was the property purchased, from whom, and at what cost?
The site chosen, I was informed, is at Starbuck, Manitoba. I asked whether any other sites were considered. The answer to this question was: "Yes, and the most suitable site acquired". Well, the C.B.C. said it would serve the most heavily populated area, but it will not provide a service in a large part of the northern area of Manitoba.
Another question I asked was when work on the project would be completed, and the answer given was, October, 1964. Mr. Chairman, we are near the end of October, now, and so far this change has not taken place.
On April 29 I asked further questions. I again asked when it was expected that the new service would come into operation and the answer, once more, was October, 1964. I asked, also:
Will this changeover improve television reception for the interlake area of Manitoba and, if not, how soon can one expect action to be taken to bring about this much needed improvement?
The answer to this question was:
It is anticipated that some areas of the interlake region will receive an improved reception but it is not possible to guarantee reception in specific areas.
I had also asked:
Should these changes fail to bring about an improvement in television viewing in the interlake area, what action will the C.B.C. or the B.B.G. take?
The answer was:
The corporation intends to conduct a survey of reception in the area following the completion of the proposed changes. The results of this survey will be used to determine what action if any should be taken.
At the hearing the C.B.C. officials made it abundantly clear that they could not guarantee that this change would improve the service in the interlake area. The applicants expressed the fear that if they did not get reception as a result of this changeover they would be left without television for many years to come. Remember, this is an area right in the middle of Manitoba; it is not an outlying area; it is not an area in the north. Surely, a situation like this should not be allowed to exist.
I wish to quote briefly at this point from the transcript of the hearing as reported in sessional paper No. 129. Mr. Pearson, for the

board of broadcast governors, is questioning Mr. Karsin who appeared for the interlake people. He is referring to a contour map of the Department of Transport where the original B contour of CBWT cuts across north of Teulon over, roughly, to lake Francis. The exchange reads as follows:


Lester Bowles Pearson: And the B contour will now pass somewhere up south of Oak Island Marsh and across Lundar and Mill End and Camp Morton- they would all be within the B contour? Would this not give beyond that some better signal than is presently received?


Mr.   Karsin@: Maybe a bit better, but not good enough for us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate your position, Mr. Karsin, that you feel if this application is granted, as requested, the interlake will forever remain a hinterland without television?


Mr.   Karsin@: Yes. You can tell by the channel 7 map-
Incidentally, channel 7 is a private station. When it was established in Winnipeg the people in the interlake area thought they would get a television service. But the station built its antennae south of Winnipeg and reception did not extend to the northern part of the interlake area. Mr. Karsin's answer continued:
-we have a map there from CJAY and the fringe just goes north of Teulon and it does come in at times-it depends on atmospheric conditions. It does come in; sometimes it is good and at other times it is not, so this at Starbuck on channel 6 with 100,000 watts would be about the same-we would get reception just some of the time.
As I have said, the fear was expressed that adoption of this proposal would leave the area without television service for a long time to come. There are a couple of questions and answers toward the conclusion of the hearing to which I would like to refer. This is the part I want to quote. Dr. Stewart is now putting questions to an official of the C.B.C.:
Dr. Stewart; I am not sure if I missed this point, but supposing you were wrong and Mr. Karsin is even underestimating the deficiencies in this interlake area-supposing you make your move and it is still obviously quite inadequate service in the significant part of the interlake area, is it technically possible on a VHF band to correct this?


Mr. Fraser:: You are thinking of a satellite?
Dr. Stewart: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It would be technically possible, but I think this would be a matter of economics. Here again, depending on the number of population to be served-the population in that area is quite scattered-they are quite small communities-and a satellite normally doesn't cover a large geographical area. That would be a matter that would have to be figured out.
Interim Supply
Dr. Stewart: I thought Mr. Karsin left the impression that if this didn't work, then the interlake area was lost for all time, in so far as service. Technically this is not so?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Technically this is not true.
That is right. Technically, it is not true. At the same time the people of the interlake area fear that if the present set-up will not provide improved service they will be there for a long time without any service whatsoever.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Eric Stefanson: No, it is not carried yet. I want to point out that station CBWT in Winnipeg went on the air in 1954. From 1954 to 1958 it was on channel 4. In 1958 it switched to channel 3 and the service became worse. It has been on channel 3 ever since. Next month, I presume, it will be changing to channel 6 and it has been indicated to me that as a result of this change the people in the area will have to buy new antennae at an expenditure to them of between $40 and $50 each. It seems to me there has been poor planning on the part of the C.B.C., otherwise they would not have had to switch the station twice.


Mr. Orlikow:: Why are they not enjoying private t.v.?


Eric Stefanson: Private television does not provide coverage for the northern part of the area. The C.B.C. is serving only the more populated area; it is not providing service for the other areas at all. I now ask this question:	When can people living in the
following areas expect to get television service: Norway House, Grand Rapids, Dauphin River, Matheson Island? I would remind the committee that Norway House has a population of more than 2,000 people.
In closing I would recommend that the officials of the C.B.C. announce the precise date on which the changeover will take place. They should do this as quickly as possible and, in addition, inform the people concerned what antenna changes are required. If the changeover is to take place next month, or a little later, this is the time when the corporation should be announcing the date so that the viewers concerned can prepare themselves and go ahead with the alterations in their antennae which are needed. In the hearing they tried to say no changes would be required, but this has been proven false before and all the people in this area are of the opinion that they will require new antennae.

Interim. Supply
I trust that the corporation, upon completion of the changeover, will immediately start a survey of reception in the area to determine whether this changeover has effected any improvement in television reception. I am thinking particularly of areas such as Gypsumville, St. Martin, Steep Rock, Moose-horn, Ashern, Eriksdale, Lundar, Poplarfield, Broad Valley, Fisher Branch, Hodgson, Dallas-


Some hon. Members:: All aboard.


Eric Stefanson: -Koostatak, Arborg, Riverton, Hecla and Matheson Island.


Some hon. Members:: All aboard.


Eric Stefanson: Yes, you can all say "All aboard". All these areas are entitled to television service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Stefanson: If there is not a substantial improvement for these areas, I am sure there will be a flood of protests submitted by the people from this area to the C.B.C. and to myself.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could for a moment bring the committee back from the reaches of the C.B.C. and its service to Canada, or lack of service to Canada, to present some ideas on our trade policy, because I see little opportunity of being able to do this on the minister's estimates. Perhaps we will never see them again this session; therefore I have decided to seize this opportunity because I can then deal with the estimates of two departments which will be concerned with what I have to speak of this evening, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs.
It used to be said that war was merely an extension of diplomatic policy. I would suggest that today that conception should be changed to read that trade and the credits on which trade can be financed should form part of the diplomatic policy of any country. But Canada, I am sure we are all glad to know and realize, has only had one foreign policy for a very long time, and that is a policy of maintaining and promoting peace throughout the world. We are being called on to follow this policy in some rather strenuous ways. This summer, when I had the opportunity to see one of these forces that we have supplied for action in the Middle East, it occurred to me that perhaps Canadians have been somewhat suckers in this regard, in that we have meekly accepted

these responsibilities without having demanded any powers to seek some solutions.
This summer I was fortunate enough to receive invitations from two governments to visit their countries as their guests; not, as some of my friends in the press gallery have been suggesting to the people, to indulge in elderly gambolling in Europe, but it was a very strenuous fact-finding tour of Egypt and of Israel. I must say that I left the Middle East profoundly depressed at the situation there, which leaves one wondering whether the men in the Gaza strip who represent the force we have had there for eight years will be represented 80 years from now with a similar force, because we are doing nothing to deal with this problem. I would suggest this is an area in which our trade policies should play a very important role.
During my quite extensive tour of Egypt I was taken to a number of their developments in which it seemed to me Canada is ideally placed to take part. I was taken to the Aswan dam, and to visit the large fertilizer factory, the CIMA factory, which turns out some 400,000 tons of fertilizer per year; it has been in operation for about 1J years. This factory, together with a similar factory near Cairo, turns out only just over 50 per cent of the requirements of the country, according to the director of this plant at Aswan. It seemed to me that here was a place in which Canada could well play a role in aiding the Egyptians in the frightful struggle they have at the present time to make their food production keep pace with their increasing population.
We were taken to the area west of Alexandria where the Egyptians are developing a new province, with desert reclamation. This was a very impressive project, but the young director who showed me around all day pointed out that he lacked adequate modern, agricultural machinery. He had been in North America; he had been sent to the Imperial Valley and to Berkeley, the University of California. He was aware-and told me of it-that the only place in which this sort of machinery could be obtained would be in North America, either in the United States or in Canada; that he was seriously handicapped by lack of it, and handicapped by lack of fertilizer to promote growth in that area.
I noticed, in the new town of Aswan that has been built, that in the big department store there was a tremendous preponderance of German household goods of every kind on the shelves. Again it occurred to me that here

perhaps was a place in which Canada could play a part. When I was taken to the Gaza strip, as I say, I found our forces there stalemated, getting no further ahead. The Arab-Israeli dispute was still holding everything at a standstill. When I left the Middle East I was profoundly depressed, as I have said, because I realized that this is an area that calls out loudly for an integrated development. I may say that the Israelis need the Arabs just as much as the Arabs need the Israelis. I admit there are terrific problems to be solved, but I think one of the first problems to be solved is that of improving the living conditions in the Arab countries, which are in many instances very bad.
In Egypt they are making tremendous strides, but they are making tremendous strides against fearful odds; the growing population, the large scale illiteracy, and last but not least, the perfectly appalling climate, which makes many operations extremely difficult. It seems to me that our first step in seeking a peaceful solution of the situation in the Middle East is to remove some of the hardships under which the Arab people live at the present time; to give them every aid that we can in the development of their countries. I may say that when I was at Aswan I watched the construction work on the Aswan dam and saw the Russian equipment, and I knew of the Russian technicians who were working there. I felt it was a great tragedy that the late John Foster Dulles was not gathered to his fathers many years before, because he of course was responsible for this development in that area, having pulled the rug from under the Egyptian government with the projected loan that was to be given by the United States and Britain and the world bank. This forced the Egyptian government into the arms of Russia. However, that has been done. Now it seems to me we should try to retrace our steps to some extent and aid in the development of a country whose people have suffered for many, many years from colonial domination; people who were the subject of a savage attack only eight years ago, an unprovoked attack from Israel, Britain and France.
This brings me to the other aspect of the problem, that of releasing our men from service in the United Nations emergency force, and the disbandment of that force. While the major problem may very well be an economic one enveloping the whole area, I think we have to remember there are other aspects too, of bitter memory which are going to be very hard to overcome.
Interim Supply
I hesitate to venture onto what I know is very delicate ground, as most of us are emotionally involved in the maintenance of the state of Israel due, I think, to our consciousness-a certain guilt consciousness perhaps- that it was people of our culture, of European culture, who committed such obscene atrocities against the Jewish people. I think that fact has coloured most of our thinking with regard to the state of Israel. I have reached the conclusion that it has led us to the point where we are not prepared to be objective in the assessment of the situation in the Middle East. For instance, I found very great difficulty in persuading people in Israel- though I did persuade some of them-to admit some of the very black spots in the history of the new state of Israel. To me it is extremely tragic that the people who have suffered the appalling treatment the Jewish people suffered at the hands of the nazis should themselves have been capable of the disgraceful conduct of which they were guilty at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel. Some of them finally admitted to me that there was savage destruction and slaughter in Arab villages which had the effect of terrifying the Arab population and driving them out, to become the now festering sore which is the refugee problem in the Middle East.
I have mentioned the attack on the Suez canal, which is of more recent history, though the memory is still very green. It seems to me that if Canada is going to accept the sort of responsibilities which we have been shouldering for the last eight years we must also demand the right to take steps to seek a permanent solution. Our government must be prepared to insist in the United Nations that the state of Israel, for which all of us have the very greatest sympathy and I take it the greatest admiration for what they have done, should accept the resolutions of the United Nations, if it is to be considered a good member of that organization. Among those resolutions-and there are many of them passed by the general assembly-perhaps the most important is the acceptance of responsibility for the plight of the Arab refugees in the neighbouring Arab states. I saw the plight of those refugees, and while I know it is said- there may be some truth in it too-that they are maintained in their present position by the Arab states as a weapon in this war of nerves with the state of Israel, I also think we have to fact the fact that the Arab states are at present not in any economic situation to absorb this large body of refugees.
I do not think, and I have argued with my Arab friends on this score, that it is a reason-

Interim Supply
able idea that they should be resettled in Israel. If I were an Arab refugee I have a doubt whether I would care to be settled in Israel. I think that our government should be taking steps to bring pressure on Israel to accept some of this responsibility, to see that this sore in the heart of the Middle East is permanently cured; and we, as a member of the United Nations, should be prepared to play our part in financing the sort of development that is going to be required.
However, first of all there must be, as I have told some of my Israeli friends, the conviction of sin before there can be any steps taken on the path toward salvation, and they are not helping the problem by attempting to deny the facts of history. To me it is tragic that a people who have suffered at the hands of those who have habitually rewritten history should be attempting to rewrite it on their own behalf. So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in pursuing our foreign policy, wherever we have accepted this sort of obligation the Canadian government should pursue a doublepronged policy: an economic policy, and the other a diplomatic policy. In this case we should provide credit to the Arab states to enable them to build up their economies, and at the same time we should use our position in the United Nations to bring pressure on the other side to this conflict.
It seems to me that a country which for eight years has maintained troops there, has again undertaken a similar task in Cyprus, and before that undertook a similar task in the Congo, is one which should demand that its voice be listened to with respect in the United Nations. It is one which should be able to bargain with the great powers which are so happy to leave these peace keeping operations to the nice, mild, powerless, middlesized nations of the world. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I have the feeling that Canada and the other six nations who comprise the United Nations emergency force on the Gaza strip are being made suckers of by the great powers of the world who, behind this nice police action which we are engaging in, holding the status quo, are still pursuing their oil and military machinations and private policies behind the scenes. I think it is time that we woke up. Most Canadians are proud of the role which Canada has played in these affairs, and I think we would be much prouder if, before we make one of these efforts again, we and our partners were vested with full authority from the United Nations to seek a permanent solution instead of merely acting as international cops-an international police

force to stand there and maintain the status quo.
There is another aspect to this. I have mentioned the necessity to my mind of providing credit to the Arab countries for their development. There is something else which should be done too. We hear a great deal about the boycott which the Arab nations have imposed on a number of firms who have been dealing with the state of Israel, and this is a situation which I deplore. I think that a boycott of this sort is thoroughly evil. But we should not forget that there is another boycott, too, which is taking place simultaneously right here in Canada, where powerful interests are preventing any growing trade with the Arab countries, involving Canada without our knowledge in this war between the two forces in the Middle East. This should also be brought to a full stop if we are to seek a permanent solution in that sad and tragic part of the world.
I should like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by expressing publicly my great gratitude and appreciation to the government of Egypt and the government of Israel which tendered me this invitation to visit them and who were both so generous and hospitable while I was there. It seems to me that the best service I could render both those governments is to try and persuade the government of Canada to take some positive steps toward seeking a solution to their joint problems in that area; and to my mind trade is one of the major steps which should be taken at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Oh no.


Mr. Roxburgh:: God forbid.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have just read an article in the newspaper which criticizes the way some members handle themselves in debate. I should like to say that it is that kind of howling and interruption on the part of backbenchers on the Liberal side which is ruining parliament, and I would ask you as chairman to bring them to order. The hon. member for Acadia has just risen in his place to make a speech and even before he starts to speak he is already being heckled and shouted at by people not interested in the dignity of parliament.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to thank the hon. member for Bow River for his remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a tew remarks, but. if the hon. member for Kootenay East wishes to rise in his place and make a speech for me, or for himself, I will be glad to resume my seat and allow him to do so. It seems he is forever making interruptions from his seat.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would not want to make one of your speeches.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: He has no brains when he is on his feet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone has said he has no brains when he is on his feet. Perhaps that is why he rarely stands up to make a speech.


An hon. Member:: He has none, period.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone has now said that he has no brains, period.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What do you say?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not think he has shown any evidence of having brains since his coming to this house.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I invite the hon. member to forget the interruptions which greeted him at the commencement of his remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words quietly and sincerely about a subject, that has consumed a great deal of time in this chamber in the past few days.
A number of government members, as well as members on this side, have condemned the C.B.C. because of several of its programs. We are now being asked to vote one eighth or one ninth of total government spending for a period of two months. I am pleased to be a member of a party which suggested during the last interim supply debate that interim supply should be granted for a period of three months so we would not be called upon frequently to carry on debate on interim supply, thereby allowing this house to get on with more important business. Before that amount of money is passed by this committee I think hon. members in this chamber feel duty bound to comment on how the government is spending this money- whether it is being spent wisely, with caution and with scrutiny as recommended by the Glassco commission. Is this corporation paying attention to the recommendations of the Auditor General?
Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of question that entered my mind during this debate. A great deal of discussion has taken place regarding the C.B.C. I was a member of the last working broadcasting committee in 1959 and 1961. At that time I took a very active interest in the operations of this corporation.
I must say that I was slightly shocked at the manner in which the corporation works. I am not witch hunting because of certain C.B.C. programs, but I am wondering about its general policies and its responsibility to parliament.
This parliament should not act as a censor of the C.B.C. Many programs are shown by the corporation which I do not enjoy. I am sure, however, that many other viewers appreciate that type of program, and I accept that fact. But I am concerned with the corporate structure of the C.B.C. and its relation and responsibility to parliament. The C.B.C. is a public body and should be responsible, through parliament, to the people of Canada.
During an early speech the Minister of Agriculture stated that the C.B.C. was spending more money than his whole department spent in aid to farmers in Canada. I do not know whether that is an accurate comparison, but I point it out to indicate the size of the corporation and its expenditures. A royal commission in the 1930's suggested that Canada needed a national network. The C.B.C. was established to create and operate a radio network system. Since that time this corporation has branched into the television field. Late in the 1950's the board of broadcast governors was established as a regulatory body. I think it was generally accepted at that time, as now, that such a regulatory body performs a useful function. However, I am concerned about the mammoth growth of this C.B.C. structure. There are no real controls over it in respect of expenditure. The corporation is supposed to bring forward a five year capital expansion program. I suppose it has done this, but I have yet to see any real, long range growth policy. The C.B.C. places its expansion program before treasury board and treasury board rules as to whether or not the corporation will receive the required amount of money. What is happening as a result of this procedure? This corporate structure is continuing to grow without aim or direction, and certainly without any controlling reins held by the elected representatives of the people.
I think the whole question of policy of the C.B.C. needs to be closely reconsidered. The

Interim Supply
corporation should be considered in light oi what it is doing and the direction it is moving. The board of broadcast governors should examine this corporation very closely. In earlier years Canada required a national network system. Does Canada still require such a system? Is there a need for a government subsidized body in this field of communications? Most areas of Canada are now being served by the C.B.C., as well as by private radio and television networks, many of which are affiliated with the C.B.C. Perhaps we no longer need this crown corporation.
Mr. Chairman, most of the questions I have posed this evening should be considered and answered. One other question that has been of some concern to me relates to the 55 per cent Canadian content regulation. What does that regulation mean? Does it mean that 55 per cent of the actors must be Canadian? Does it mean that 55 per cent of the actors must be of Canadian origin? Does it mean that the film must be produced by Canadian photographers? I suggest if this regulation is carefully examined one will discover that it means the film must be produced by a crew which is at least 55 per cent Canadian, and that is all. Is compliance with this regulation going to mean that Canadians will have a greater part in the television industry? I suggest the obvious answer is, not necessarily.
Has the C.B.C. gone along with, accepted or rejected the recommendations of the Glassco commission? Not exactly. The Auditor General made some comments a year ago with regard to the financing of the C.B.C. He found it a bit odd, to say the least. I think that was the gist of his remarks when the public accounts committee was studying the financing of the C.B.C. These are questions that I think should be examined by a broadcasting committee.
The whole question of Canadianism is causing a great deal of trouble across Canada today. Is it the C.B.C.'s responsibility to project their image of Canadianism across Canada? Are they the ones who should interpret what they think Canada should be or should evolve into in the years ahead? Should they portray this image to the Canadian public, whether or not they are right in their projection or in their vision? In other words, is it their job as a corporate entity directly responsible to parliament to interpret Canadianism in the years ahead? This is what they seem to think at times.
Questions have been asked in broadcasting committees in the past with regard to whether or not certain expenditures should be made,

and from time to time we have had examples of amounts such as $120,000 or $150,000 being spent on various programs which, to say the least, did not receive wide approval across Canada and which did in fact cause a great deal of apprehension in many homes. Is this the kind of business in which the people of Canada want the C.B.C. to be engaged? In other words, is it the C.B.C.'s job to enter into competition with Hollywood? I do not think so. Even the socialist government of the 40's and 50's in Saskatchewan did not go to that extent. They got into many businesses but they did not try to compete with Hollywood in such a risky business as the production of acceptable films. They did not try anything as risky as that. They stuck to shoe leather, bricks, boxes and many other things that one could mention.
We find the C.B.C. now engaged in the business of the production of films in competition with Hollywood and other private enterprises. I think this whole question should be examined in the light of the future policy of this corporate structure, which is now spending over $100 million a year, with nobody holding the pursestrings. Where is it going to end? The member of our party who spoke just before me mentioned the vast interlake area of Manitoba which is receiving no television service. Is the C.B.C. making a worth-while effort to go into those areas where there is no television reception? Is the C.B.C. making a worth-while effort so far as radio is concerned, or have they forgotten about their obligations in the field of radio? These are some of the questions that I think should be examined by a broadcasting committee. Many members have urged the setting up of a broadcasting committee during this debate and I certainly agree with that suggestion.
Some member interjected a while ago that this was a private matter. When I first became a member of the house I know that television reception in my own constituency of Acadia was practically nil. But then ambitious, enterprising, private television stations moved in, long before the C.B.C. In fact, the C.B.C. has been rather reluctant to move into the east central part of Alberta, a vast area which was not able to enjoy television reception for a number of years until the growth of private television stations.
I say this in a somewhat derogatory sense so far as the C.B.C. is concerned, because surely they must feel it is their duty to make radio and television services available across Canada for all Canadians. I know they have

said so from time to time in the committee, but I have seen the evidence of how they have carried out this duty. It took the private stations or affiliated stations to move into the area I represent in order for the people there to have television reception second to none. So there are many areas with regard to which the C.B.C. should be subjected to close crossexamination.
I will not go into great detail about the matter of program content, but many members have spoken about the program last Sunday evening in which the nazi leader in the United States was portrayed for 12 minutes. I do not think the C.B.C. should be spending Canadian money to put this type of leader before the Canadian people. But they have done it, and who am I to censor? Maybe a few people enjoyed watching the program; I do not know. But the main complaint I have with regard to the C.B.C. is that this corporate structure is growing, growing, ever growing, with no suggested limit and no suggested aim.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Like the Tory party.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is that famous member speaking again from his seat. He makes more interjections than any other ten members of the house.


Mr. Cashin:: Better to speak from your seat than through your hat.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If he would only rise to his feet and make a speech I am sure we would all listen. His interjections are so wise, so well thought out that if he ever rose to make a speech I am sure he would have the ear of every member of the house. Mr. Chairman, I was saying I feel that in many respects the C.B.C. has done a tremendous job. It is a national network and we need such a network for some things, but I do not believe we should allow this structure to continue to grow without any aim or basic policy.
We should have a national network to serve as a news medium and as an educational medium, but it should get out of competition with Hollywood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some hon. members on the Liberal side clap their hands. I can well understand this because the C.B.C. tried its hand at making a Hollywood film of their leader and failed so badly that they would not let it be shown.
Interim Supply


An hon. Member:: They should make one of the galloping ghost.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: More interjections, Mr. Chairman. They filibustered this debate all day yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They intend to filibuster it all day today, but from their seats. The risky business of making entertainment films should be left to free enterprise.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Good for Barry; he is going to carry three states in Alberta.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have got another hour, Mr. Chairman. If they want to continue to interrupt me, that is fine. If they take this matter so lightly as to laugh about it, that is fine. That is the way the government takes most problems in Canada today. We saw them bring in one bill after another -the pension plan, on again off again; the labour code, in again out again; and with the farm legislation, because they had bullheaded Harry behind it they bulled it through to the benefit of few farmers across the country. We have seen their type of arrogance.
Some ten minutes ago I was trying to summarize my remarks by suggesting parliament should not be a censor of programs shown on the C.B.C., but I do think parliament should give guidance to the general aims and policy of the corporate structure. The capital cost of the C.B.C. continues to grow, and as the capital structure of the C.B.C. grows so will the cost. This is inevitable. The C.B.C. should not be in competition with Hollywood. Let them sell, let them lease, let them do what they may with their film studios, but let them get out of competition with Hollywood in such a risky business.
The C.B.C. can do good work as a news and educational medium. It can educate Canadians on various industries located across the country, and if we feel purely Canadian films should be made, let us leave that up to the national film board, which is another corporate body. We have two corporate bodies and, to quote my hon. friend across the way, they are actually in competition with one another, one having no limit on the amount of money it can spend. That is practically the case with regard to the C.B.C.


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My friends from deep left field are all in favour of the C.B.C. That is the way I interpret them.

Interim Supply


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They must have left friends in Quebec.
. Mr. Caouelle: Amen.


Gilles Grégoire: Alouette.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We should have a broadcasting committee established, and the chairman of the C.B.C. should appear before it to outline some of his thoughts and aims on where this octopus is going. Surely parliament should be given some idea where it is going. Some time ago the minister who is responsible for the C.B.C. said, "If it doesn't do what the government wants it to do, heads will roll." That is not good enough. The C.B.C. should not be held under the thumb of this or any government. It should be responsible to parliament and should be given guidance and a general outline on aims by parliament.
This can only be done in a committee composed of all parties, perhaps of all hon. members, and if that committee wished the C.B.C. to continue in competition with Hollywood, then fine, but I believe the majority of my constituents feel the C.B.C. should get out of making entertainment films. From time to time many members have complained about C.B.C. programs, and the C.B.C. has striven to project its image far and beyond what it should.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I have said enough. Many expenses with which I do not agree are being incurred across this country, but in order to facilitate the passage of interim supply I have limited my remarks to the subject of the C.B.C.-


An hon. Member:: Time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This should not be interpreted as meaning that I am in complete agreement with the way in which most of the money now requested is to be spent by the government-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: I have allowed the hon. member a few extra minutes on account of various interruptions he suffered but I am afraid, now, that he will have to terminate his interesting speech.


Some hon. Members:: Encore.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take advantage of this debate on interim supply to state my views on the economic situation generally prevailing in Canada, and especially on the financial situation of the province of Quebec and its population. I also wish to

draw the attention of this house to certain special and abnormal situations.
More than ever the Canadian economy is going around in circles; it marks time, shuffles along, bogs down and moves backward. At present, the worker must face the constant progress of automation. He faces the constant progress of the various modern techniques of production. Facing technological, scientific and other progress, the worker is increasingly threatened by insecurity, hardship and unemployment.
The worker is becoming more and more enslaved and destitute due to mechanization and science, which stemmed in the human brain. Progress came through man and the present government offers no economic solution which would enable him to lead a better life than he did before he brought forth this progress.
The worker should lead a better life, as a result of progress and production, than he did before the mechanization of production.
This problem must be solved by the governments which should allow the workers, through economic solutions in accordance with progress, to enjoy the benefits of progress, that is, the production resulting from machinery, automation, mechanization or science.
The economists in our present system appear on television or write articles to say that two thirds of the human race are underfed. I agree with them, because this is proved by world statistics. The same economists who, on television as well as in their writings, talk about underfed people throughout the world, also tell us about overproduction. They speak to us of underfed people and at the same time of overproduction. And they do so quite seriously. How can the same economists mention in the same breath underfed people and overproduction?
Scarcity means malnutrition, want and poverty. Abundance would mean prosperity. But how can our economists tell us there is abundance of production in the world, while two thirds of the population of the world are underfed?
The solution is very easy. But why is it not applied? Because our governments are slaves to finance, which maintains people in poverty through its monetary and financial system.
Our monetary or financial system should be controlled by the government, so that money be based on production, that it serve production and that production may meet the needs, and by needs I mean consumption.

At the moment, our financial system is topsy-turvy; the contrary is happening, and two thirds of the human race are suffering under such conditions. Finance leads the government, whereas the government should lead finance, as we want it to do.
Mr. Chairman, why has the Bank of Canada, a federal government agency, loaned recently to the Bank of England an amount which is said to be about $50 million, at an interest rate which, we are told, amounts to .075 per cent?
Why can't this bank grant loans to our municipalities, our school boards, our cities at this same rate of interest, that is .075 per cent, for the development of our municipalities, our cities and our school boards?
Our school taxes or our municipal taxes would certainly be reduced by 50 per cent at least, should the Bank of Canada serve our Canadian institutions instead of serving foreigners.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I hear the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) say "shame". Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is a shame.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I must point out to the hon. member for Shefford that I did not at any time say "shame", as I am not interested at all in his speech.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the point of order is not well taken, but I think I heard a member of the caucus surrounding the hon. member say that word.
In any event this Liberal government grants loans to foreigners while taxing and burdening the Canadian people. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) told us that we ought to save the pound sterling. The loan to the Bank of England was to rescue the pound sterling. To rescue others but let our people croak, that is the policy of the present Minister of Finance.


David Réal Caouette: That is quite true.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I should also like to say a few words about our Canadian agriculture. Farming, too, is ruined by finance. At the present time the Canadian farmer, and especially the eastern farmer, is as far in debt and mortgages as he can go.
Yet he has received a lot from the Liberal party during the last election, but he cannot pay with promises made by the Liberal party in 1962 or 1963. He cannot make a living for his family with those promises. He caninterim Supply
not meet his obligations with those promises either. Having no farm income, he has to borrow-that is the achievement of the Liberal party: to borrow-from year to year until the farm loan organization or his creditors take his farm away from him because without income, he is unable to meet his obligations.


Gilles Grégoire: That is true.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: And when he has lost his farm, he will become a worker on the socialist collective farms of the federal government.


Rémi Paul: Bona.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: In Cuba they had the land reform. In Canada we have ARDA.


Rémi Paul: Bona.


David Réal Caouette: It is the same with Bona.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity which would not be given to me otherwise to tell the house, during the debate on this $740 million interim supply motion, the dramatic situation, the inhuman fate and the shameful discrimination borne now by the Montreal harbour dockers who are deprived of their jobs and run the risk of losing great sums of money invested by them in the retirement fund administered by the shipping federation and the international longshoremen's association.
Before coming to the core of my remarks, I should like to set a distinction between the international unions which may have rendered invaluable service to Canadian industries and those which work against our companies. The facts I should like to bring to your attention tonight:
1-	Concern the Department of Labour which administers labour legislation in Canada.
2-	The department is also interested because it is entrusted with the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
3-	Those facts also concern the Department of Transport which looks after the administration of national harbours.
4-	They are also of interest to the House of Commons and to all Canadians because they indicate that the Canadian Bill of Rights passed by parliament is being violated by the American unions which deprive Montreal harbour longshoremen of their right to choose the union they like.
5-	Those facts also show that simple regulations adopted by the international longshoremen's association, a U.S. union which

Interim Supply
has its head office in New York, have precedence over Canadian legislation such as the Industrial Relations Act which was enacted by parliament and which governs labour conditions and employment of longshoremen in Montreal harbour.
During the past six months Montreal longshoremen went on strike three times and the strangest part of it all is that none of those strikes were organized by the international longshoremen's association, the American union which is negotiating a labour contract on behalf of the longshoremen. Neither were they directed against the employers, the shipping federation of Canada. They were decided by the dockers against their own union which omits to defend them, to represent them properly or to supply its members with the required information concerning the use made of the pension fund administered jointly by the employers and the American union.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, and as the Minister of Labour is also aware, since he appointed him himself, Judge Rene Lippe was appointed to investigate the pension system of the dockers and the administration of some $6 million in that pension fund.
The report prepared and published by Judge Lippe last August does not satisfy the dockers because it does not say how the pension fund is administered; it does not say where that money is invested, how much it yields, and especially, that report makes no recommendation with a view to improving the lot of dockers being pensioned.
What are the demands of the Montreal harbour dockers?
The dockers' grievances are based on three points:
(1) the pension plan, (2) the security conditions on wharves, (3) the material vexations they endure in their work.
The Montreal harbour dockers now pay an amount of 12 cents per hour into a pension fund.
In 1963, in Montreal, 2,500 dockers worked a total of 3,689,257 hours on the waterfront, which means a payment of almost half a million dollars for only one year and a payment of $200 per docker in 1963.
They would gladly pay that amount if they were sure to retire on a suitable pension. But that is not the case, Mr. Chairman. It is so hard to qualify for a pension that most stevedores will never get one, and all the money they have thus invested during all the years they have been working will remain in the retirement fund which is jointly

administered by the employers and the international longshoremen's association.
Normally, to qualify for a pension, a stevedore must be 65 years of age. Should he quit his job and cease to be a stevedore at the age of 64 years, 11 months and 30 days, the poor man loses his contributions to the fund and his right to a pension. But even if he does work until 65, the Montreal stevedore is not sure to receive a pension; he must first be a paying member and must have paid up his dues with the American union, he must have worked on the water front continuously for at least 25 years, that is between the age of 40 and 65; he must have worked an average of 600 hours per year between the age of 60 and 65 years and have worked at least 1,500 hours in all, or an average of 300 hours a year.
If the stevedore meets all of those requirements-brace yourself-he gets a monthly pension of $50. A monthly pension of $50 when he has contributed to the retirement fund 12 cents an hour during 25 years. Is it not ridiculous? Do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that stevedores are entitled to ask questions, to ask how this money is being administered and to demand that a pension be paid out of the fund to stevedores who, because of old age or because they are no longer physically fit to do the hard jobs required of them on the waterfront, have to leave their employment before having reached 65 years?
For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, the longshoremen of the harbour of Montreal are unhappy with the administration of the international longshoremen's association, and they have decided this summer, within the limits provided by the Industrial Relations Act, to join another union which, they believe, would protect their interest in a better way, namely the syndicat national des debardeurs which is affiliated with the national trade unions federation.
It was at that time that the international longshoremen's association decided to show its teeth and strike hard, seeing that it would lose the benefits and administration of a pension fund which, some people say, is worth over $6 million, and according to the longshoremen themselves, it is worth over $10 million in view of the amounts they have been paying into it since 1953.
Threats were phoned in, and obvious intimidation borne against the longshoremen who wanted to transfer their union allegiance. Some phone callers said: "We'll break your legs", while others asserted: "When there's a war, rebels are shot."

Things got so bad that the national trade union federation had to appeal to the Quebec courts to put an end to the threats and the intimidation against the longshoremen by the international longshoremen's association.
More than that, the international longshoremen's association, not content with making threats, started to act.
They ordered the dissenting longshoremen to appear before the executive of the international union on August 17, 1964 for the following reasons:
He incited members of local 375 to leave our ranks and to join another longshoremen's association.
Everything subject to fine, suspension for a definite period or expulsion by the executive committee.
Then, on August 27 last, the national trade union federation secured from Mr. Justice Lamarre, of the superior court in Montreal, an interim injunction specifying this:
Consequently, by Thursday September 10, 1964, at noon, we enjoin the defendants to cease:
(a)	molesting or trying to molest, intimidating, threatening or trying to threaten by intimidation or otherwise present or future members of the applicant the syndicat national des debardeurs du port de Montreal (C.S.N.);
(b)	interfering in any way with the formation and legal activities of the applicant, the syndicat national des debardeurs du port de Montreal:
(c)	suspending, dismissing, threatening to dismiss or to cause the dismissal, in any way, present or future members of the applicant, the syndicat national des debardeurs du port de Montreal (C.S.N.) or depriving them directly or indirectly of their right to work; because they signed, are signing or will sign a membership card to join the applicant union;
(d)	seeking to convince, either by threats, intimidations or imposition of a penalty or by any other means, longshoremen not to join the applicant (C.S.N.) or not to take part in its activities;
(e)	ordering and/or trying to order, instructing and/or trying to instruct, advising and/or trying to advise any person whatever to take part in the commission of any or all of the above mentioned acts.
(Signed) Philippe Lamarre Justice of superior court.
However, on September 21, Mr. Justice Tellier of the same court, without pronouncing judgment on the facts quashed the temporary injunction of Mr. Justice Lamarre, because the affidavits signed by the longshoremen in this case, had been signed before the application was filed. Therefore, the injunction was quashed for legal and technical reasons. Three days after the injunction was quashed, the international longshoremen's association renewed its reprisals and the dissenters received the following letter:
Interim Supply
Dear Sir and Brother:
This is to advise you that the executive committee of local 375 of the international longshoremen's association rendered a unanimous decision on the complaint laid against you and heard at the special meeting held on August 28, 1964, at 8 o'clock p.m., in our offices located at 250 St. Paul east, in the city of Montreal.
The executive committee finds Mr	
registration No	guilty of the charge heard
on August 28, 1964, at 8 o'clock p.m., and decides
to suspend the said Mr	 for a definite
period, that is until December 31, 1965, this suspension taking effect immediately. Unanimously passed on September 24, 1964.
Under the circumstances, all your rights as a member of local 375 are suspended until December 31, 1965.
Please comply therewith.
Yours truly,
Adrien Lemoine, Secretary-Treasurer.
But what is the meaning of this expulsion by local 375 of the international longshoremen's association?
1.	It means that the longshoremen will lose the right to work on the Montreal docks, because the shipping federation of Canada is bound to hire only members who have paid their fees to the international longshoremen's association; therefore, the first result is the loss of their livelihood.
2.	Because, in several cases the expulsion of the dissenting longshoremen is decreed up to December 31, 1965, the longshoremen involved will inevitably lose their right to the pension fund, since they will have failed to work the number of hours required to be entitled to their pension.
3.	The health insurance, paid by the longshoremen to protect themselves and their families, lapses and the suspended workers, as well as their families, are deprived of coverage against the cost of illness.
4.	These workers experience difficulty with unemployment insurance, and they have not received one cent in benefits from the beginning of their expulsion, as confirmed by a letter from the unemployment insurance office, dated September 23, 1964.
An appeal from this decision was lodged and will be heard by the arbitration board on October 30. In their claims for benefits the expelled longshoremen, who are earning $2.53 per hour on the docks, stated they were available for work and able to work as longshoremen, and in fact they reported for work. But work was refused to them by the shipping federation of Canada, on account of the suspension decreed by the international longshoremen's association.

Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, this is a human problem, which cannot leave the members of the house indifferent, and above all, I imagine, the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and also of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Chairman, paragraph 4 of section 7 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Act, chapter 152, reads as follows:
Where a collective agreement is in force, the application for a new certification may be made at any time after the expiry of ten months of the term of the collective agreement.
The dockers tried to become members of another union within legal limits because the existing agreement between the international longshoremen's association was concluded on January 1, 1963 and will remain in force until December 31, 1965.
Therefore, the collective agreement has been in existence for 22 months and the dockers, under a right guaranteed by the law, can freely join another union if they wish to.
It is true that the constitution of the international longshoremen's association stipulates that any attempt to introduce another union among the dockers is liable to expulsion and fine.
How come, Mr. Chairman, that the regulations of the American union prevail over a Canadian law?
How is it possible that Canadian workers cannot change their union allegiance, are denied their trade union freedom because it is forbidden by the constitution of an American union? How can the American unions, just as an ex-president of an American union at the present time, thus ignore our laws and scoff with impunity at the Canadian Bill of Rights which guarantees freedom of association?
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Labour to intervene and to see that a serious study is made of this matter, to ensure that the freedom of our unions and their members is respected, and that those workers, until such time as they go back to their jobs, or to any job, receive the unemployment insurance to which human beings in their position are entitled.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I want to take advantage of interim supply to make a proposal which I sincerely set out for the consideration of the house, and of those who may be interested in it. It comes technically under the estimates of the privy council and relates

particularly to the centennial commission. The suggestion I want to make is basically directed toward this commission and I am hoping it will be taken into consideration when the spending estimates for special projects are considered.
Very briefly I am going to present a confederation student exchange program. By way of background I should like to point out that all who have studied Canada's problems, political, social and economic, agree that they arise from its immense size and diversity of interest. We have really six regions in Canada -the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the prairies, British Columbia and the north. Our problems are magnified by a lack of understanding in each area of the outlook of the others. It applies not only as between all regions of Canada. Lack of understanding is most dramatic with the province of Quebec and the other provinces because of difficulty in communication; but other regional differences are just as great and are often overlooked.
It has seemed to me that one of the great opportunities of our centennial celebrations is to do something positive toward removing these areas of misunderstanding. There is no longer any excuse from a transportation or communication aspect. The means of transportation is there; bus, rail, air and motor vehicle travel facilities are fast and plentiful. The beauty and magnitude and diversity of Canada has hardly been explored by Canadians either young or old, but it is the young people in whom the hope of the future lies and who deserve the best we can give them in preparation for building a better Canada.
In this context I propose a confederation student exchange of a magnitude and nature not previously undertaken, and one which only a central body such as the federal government or the centennial commission can sponsor and underwrite. Several public minded organizations are presently sponsoring student exchanges in Canada within the limits of their own resources. Visite interprovinciale and the Canadian council of Christians and Jews are two worth mentioning. They sponsor trips from two weeks to a month, and this year about 3,000 students will have visited other parts of Canada. The plan I propose, however, is different in both magnitude and depth. If accepted, it will throw the resources of the nation into a real effort to create a unified and self-confident Canada.
The fundamentals of the plan are these: first, a home to home exchange of students among the various regions of Canada, for one full school term, for students in their third

and later years in secondary school; second, a home to home exchange for the summer months for students who cannot take a whole school term. Registration and administrative arrangements would be handled by the centennial commission. Transportation would be provided by the federal government. Local arrangements for personal supervision, health and education would be made with the provinces. Parents would provide room, board and school necessities for the visiting student. Clothes and spending money would come from home. The exchange would be voluntary, open to all students within the selected grades, provided only that the student had passed his or her previous year's examination. The exchange would be massive, as I see it, geared to make a noticeable impact on Canadian life and its youth, with a target of 100,000 students in 1967 and a continuing program thereafter.
In detail, the idea is that parents of a student desiring to exchange would be hosts to another student of the same age, sex and school grade for one school term, while their child becomes the guest of the other home. The students, in short, would exchange homes. The foster parents would provide for the visiting student as they would for their own child. The friends of the home and absent student would form a circle into which the visiting student would easily fit. Such an exchange would be available to all, and would cost the student and his family nothing. For one school term, he or she would become a part of the life of the new family, town, school and province.
While the idea seems simple in its conception, there are real and practical difficulties to be worked out. Technical problems of educational standards, jurisdiction and registration on the one hand, and personal problems of environment, standards of living, religion and adaptability of both parents and children on the other, are the most apparent. But after giving it a good deal of thought I am convinced they can be overcome.
With regard to registration, parents or students desiring to exchange would make application to the central body on a prescribed application form which could and would be made up for use in a computing machine. The particulars of the child to be exchanged and his home circumstances, as well as province, religion and school the child wished to attend would be indicated on the application. Computers would match up the cards and provide applicants with names of matching families.
A period of time would be allowed in which direct correspondence would take place be-
Interim Supply
tween families. When a suitable exchange was arranged, both applicants would notify the central agency. Except for the services provided, the arrangement would be a private one, with applicants accepting all responsibilities between themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to move to a consideration of the services which would be provided by the public. In the first place, the federal government would provide return transportation for the student, as well as one visit home at Christmas or Easter during the term. The provincial or territorial government would provide the educational facilities to the visiting student. They would provide the exchange of records and matching curriculum, as far as possible. The province would also provide supervisory services. I think for such supervisory services the best agencies available would be children's aid societies, or welfare agencies within the provinces. Each home would be visited in advance and reported upon by the children's aid society. It would be improper to ask these agencies to evaluate these homes, therefore my suggestion is that the only report which would be made in advance would designate the home as either suitable or unsuitable for exchange while the student is in the foster home, the agency would make visits at regular intervals to see that both student and foster parents were satisfied with the arrangements. A completely homesick or unsatisfied child could return home without prejudicing the other student. No liability would devolve on the welfare agency while acting in good faith in its duties.
Mr. Chairman, I have given some serious thought to the question of what type of student would qualify for such an exchange. When the original centennial commission was set up some years ago a proposal somewhat similar to this was made, and in the general outline there was similarity. The report of that commission suggested that children of the ages from 15 years to 17 years would be eligible for exchange. I have suggested, however, that students in the third and fourth years of secondary school who have completed their previous year's examinations and were in good standing would be eligible to partake in such an exchange. The question of age is one of some difficulty. I felt that in the first or second year of high school many students would be too young to make such an exchange and properly fit into their new homes.
Mr. Chairman, I did mention a second type of exchange. The one I have just outlined is

Interim Supply
a school term exchange. There should also be provision for a number of students who could not properly make an exchange during a school year. In this category there would be students in their final year of secondary school, whose education should not be disturbed. If these students wanted to make an exchange they might find that the standards of education were so different in the province visited that they would not be able to pass the different examinations. There should also be a summer exchange for students who desire to make an exchange with students in areas not having a comparable curriculum.
There would be a third group of students who would not take the whole year. They would be those who wanted to exchange for cultural or language purposes and who could not properly fit into the language area and get any results from their schooling. These would be people who desired to exchange from one language area to another, to move into a home environment in the other language and acquire fluency in that second language. Such an exchange could work both ways. By that I mean it could be partly in the one province and partly in the other, for one month in the one province and one month in the other for each of the students.
Summer exchanges would be based on the same principles as the others, except that they would be of shorter duration and would not involve any educational problem of any kind. I know of several very successful experiments that have been made in this type of home to home exchange. I know that this summer a large number of students from the province of Ontario who live in English language communities moved into various French language communities in Quebec, stayed there for one or two weeks and returned home bringing their guests with them for a similar period. This experiment was entered upon with a great deal of hesitation by some of these children because they were not sure what they were going to get into. That is the reason why I suggested in my original plan that when there is an exchange there should be supervision by some sort of agency which would verify that the home is proper for the child to go into and, on the other hand, that the new parents are satisfied with the child who has been placed with them.
There is one difficulty that undoubtedly will come to mind and that is the question of religion. There are many situations where religion might cause difficulty, even though other exchange factors would be satisfactory.

The plan I envisage would include the question of religion as part of the application particulars, and if necessary the computers could match up the cards of the student and the parents. But in many cases there would be no problem and as I see it the sole requirement would be that the foster parents agree, as part of their general undertaking, to send the student to a church designated by the parents. There is no real problem but it is undoubtedly one matter that would cause some concern.
As to the time of commencement of this plan, I should like to set as a target date the school term of 1966-67, which is roughly two years away. I have had discussions with people who are interested and who have operated exchange programs and they feel that a two year period would be quite sufficient to enable them to be prepared to carry out this program. I am not putting forward this project as a pipe dream because I have discussed it with people who have been in the field, and it can be done and can make a very significant impact on Canada for the future. I would suggest that the summer exchanges start in 1967, and after 1966 and 1967 these exchanges would be on a continuing basis as students reach the grades designated.
There are about a million students in Canada's secondary schools and about 400,000 of these are in their third or subsequent years and would come under the plan I have mentioned. I have selected this age group because they are mature enough to travel but young enough to adapt to new surroundings. Allowances will have to be made for those who find some disturbance in curriculum, because they will have compensated for it in experience. Final year students who are preparing for university entrance should probably only participate in the summer exchange.
I have discussed this plan with a number of experts in the field. The technical difficulties can be ironed out. Computers can handle the matching of registration cards, provincial curricula can be equated, and the plan can work.
I can think of no better way to meet our obligation to the coming generation, to take a great step toward national understanding, to substitute personal experience and direct exposure for book learning, and to provide a living and meaningful centennial project. For the cost of one public building and one military aircraft, or for the amount the federal government spends in one day, this

plan can be operated for one year. The money would all be spent in Canada and for transportation on facilities already running. The centennial commission is now operating and no new body will have to be set up. Every parent who participates in the program will be making a personal contribution to the centennial and will be receiving something from it for his or her own child. Every person in every community can give something to the country in accepting and welcoming the visiting student.
May I conclude by saying that the centennial can become a meaningful experience so that when the bunting comes down, the buildings are emptied and a second look is taken at many of the centennial projects which are expensive and unproductive, there will be a deep satisfaction in knowing that we have taken a real step ahead, one that will be rewarding and permanent. May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the genial acting house leader if he can give us an indication not only of the business for tomorrow but the business for Monday and Tuesday?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue the discussion of interim supply. Then we will take up the balance of the estimates of the Minister of Industry, namely the balance of defence production, the national research council and atomic energy. Then we will take up the Department of Forestry followed by the Department of National Revenue. I regret I cannot forecast the items of business for Monday.


Norman Platt Lambert: Does the acting house leader anticipate that he will be able to indicate tomorrow the business for Monday?


John Watson MacNaught: If we should be so unfortunate as to be still considering interim supply tomorrow night, we shall go on with interim supply on Monday.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
9591
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion CANADIAN COASTGUARD-APPOINTMENT OF

Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that under the new rules, although hon. members are given an opportunity to put forward questions at this time, the responsible minister is not required to be present. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport a question, and I might say that his attitude was rather petulant, in fact ridiculous, in that he expected me to preface my question with a speech welcoming him back to the house, something he had already received from a member of the N.D.P. and a Conservative member.
I know, regardless of what prepared answer someone on the Liberal side may have to give me, it will not in any way, shape or form be a reasonable or accurate answer to the problem before us at this time. My question to the Minister of Transport was:
Was it necessary for the department to reach into the ranks of the retired to find an administrator for the proposed coastguard college at Point Eward?
Mr. Speaker, I do not mind too often remarks made in the house while members are sitting in the house, but I don't see why I have to put up with members behind the curtain making all this noise. I would very much appreciate a little order, especially from those standing behind the curtains.
In his answer to the question, the Minister of Transport in his usual, complete disregard for the truth had this to say-	,


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, we now have the President of the Privy Council calling for order without allowing me to prove he has complete disregard for the truth. If the rules pennitted it I would apply the word usually used in that respect. In answer to my question this is what the Minister of Transport said:
The hon. gentleman, as is not unusual, has his facts wrong. No appointment has been made to this position, because the college has not yet been established.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I have here what we would probably consider an official press release from the Department of Transport, and if the President of the Privy Council wants to take objection to this, he can also. The first paragraph reads:
No. 84-64	October 16, 1964
Ottawa-Captain Eric Brand of Ottawa, former director of marine operations for the Department of Transport marine services, has been appointed
9592	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion planning officer of the Canadian coastguard college, it was announced today by Transport Minister J. W. Piekersgill.
We have a complete contradiction here -the answer I received yesterday from the minister completely contradicted by a press release put out under his name on October 16 when this appointment was definitely announced. The Minister of Transport said no such appointment was made because the college has yet to be established. Further on in his answers he tried to give reasons why Captain Brand was appointed.
What amazes me is that the Department of National Defence, despite their efforts and their claims that they were going to reduce the overhead costs of that department, in the year 1963-64 came up with a budget in excess of any other budget since 1956-57 when the Liberals were last in office. This department claims to have brought about a great deal of saving in its expenditures and as part of this economy program they are dismissing men from the Royal Canadian Navy in advance of their normal time for retirement-men of high qualifications; I could start with Admiral Brock and go down the list to show that the government has retired any number of competent men prematurely, men well capable of filling this situation. Yet this government, a government so anxious to save the taxpayers' money, is now reaching into the retired field to come up with the appointment announced on October 16, 1964. This announcement was made in the name of the Minister of Transport who yesterday in this house tried to maintain again, I repeat, with a complete disregard for the truth, that no such appointment had been made. This is why I say it is most unfortunate that when members have an opportunity to bring questions forward at this time the responsible minister is not present to reply to the charges.


George James McIlraith: The question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton South was:
Was it necessary for the department to reach into the ranks of the retired to find an administrator for the proposed coastguard college at Point Edward?
Of course, the answer is that no administrator has been appointed for the proposed coastguard college at Point Edward. It is clear from the hon. member's remarks that he objects to the appointment of Captain Eric Brand as planning officer to do the organizational work in setting up this coastguard college. The hon. member argues that it was


not necessary to have a retired officer to do this job. I would merely reply that he is quite right. It was not necessary, but anyone who knows anything about the subject of the coastguard college or the qualifications of Captain Brand would agree at once that it is highly desirable that the government should reach into the ranks of the retired to get such an outstanding person on a limited contract basis to do the necessary planning to set up this college. In this way, it will be possible to provide the finest training for young persons who need such training before entering upon any of the activities which are open to them by way of careers whether in the Department of Transport, the shipping industry or related activities which they may wish to pursue.
Having known something of the quality of Captain Brand's work at the time the maritime commission legislation was prepared and enacted-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the minister's time has expired.



PENSIONS-CANADA PLAN-REQUEST FOR EARLY CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, I have been asking for the resolution which precedes the new Canada pension plan to be called for debate at an early date. I have pointed out that our new rules will limit such a debate to one day and therefore, if this item of government business could be called, we could have the bill introduced and move one step further toward the adoption of this desirable measure.
When I put a further question about this matter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on orders of the day this afternoon he suggested that interim supply had higher priority, and in answer to a supplementary question he said that a day or two would not make any difference to the Canada pension plan. That of course was the reason I gave notice I would raise this question in the overtime period tonight. Putting this pension plan off for a day or two may not sound serious, but this is what has been going on since the present government came to power in the early part of 1963. We have been put off and put off with respect to this legislation until some of us wonder whether we will ever really get it.
I recognize, as all hon. members do, that the government has the full say as to what

Items of business will be called in government time, and I am not trying to usurp that right of the government. But the government also has an obligation to pay some attention to its promises. On the second day of this session the Prime Minister said in the house, in answer to a question of mine, that we would proceed with the Canada pension plan in the early days of this session. That was back in February. Prior to Easter, in response to further questions, he gave the assurance that we would deal with this matter before Easter; in fact, that we would get it to the special committee to be established for it. Then we were told later that this would be done before the summer recess. I suppose the excuse is that we did not have a summer recess.
So it has gone right throughout the months of this session; we keep being told that we are going to get this legislation soon. At last it is on the order paper in the form of the resolution that precedes the latest version of the Canada pension plan. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the government is failing in its duty and is missing a golden opportunity by not calling this item tomorrow or Monday, or Tuesday at the latest. Let me repeat that once it is called it has to be dealt with within one day, so no time is lost. The government says that interim supply has top priority. I recognize the priority of interim supply, but I would point out what all of us who have been around here for any time are aware of, namely that the present interim supply debate is not a debate that is going to take place for a certain number of days; it is a debate that is going to take place until a certain date- probably about November 5, and on that date there may be a blow-up of some kind and it will be all over. We all know what is involved here. Just as soon as we get close to the brink, or just as soon as civil service salaries are in danger of not being paid, this debate will end. Therefore any day taken out of the present interim supply debate will not postpone the passing of interim supply; as a matter of fact it will save a day's debate on interim supply, and we will have had the debate on the resolution stage of the Canada pension plan and thus get the bill.
I submit further, Mr. Speaker, that if the government would have this one day's debate, which is the limit the rules allow, on the resolution preceding the Canada pension plan bill, we would then have the bill before us and this would be taken by all members of the house and all parties as a sign of good faith that the government intends to go ahead with this legislation. I also think it would 20220-607i
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion have an effect on the temper of this house; I believe it would help the house to realize there is a firm intention to proceed during the next few weeks of this session with important and significant legislation.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I do not like the way we have been put off with respect to this matter week after week, month after month, for the past 18 months or so; and I do not think it is enough for the Prime Minister to say that another day or two will not make any difference. I say that it would make a difference if we were to take a day now on this resolution; otherwise such a day would just be lost in the interim supply debate. We should use that day to get the resolution stage over and get the bill introduced and given first reading. Then we will have the bill before us, it will be printed, it will be there for us all to see and for the country to see; and it will in fact be a sign of good faith that the government intends to proceed with this kind of important legislation, rather than with something else that might just take time and drag things out. If the government would agree to this course being followed we could thus make this session the significant and worth-while one that I believe we would yet like it to be, rather than just the longest session in history.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the announcement has already been made tonight that we are going to have interim supply tomorrow and Monday, I put to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), who I take it is the minister who is going to answer me, this simple question: Will the government not reconsider my proposal and call the resolution preceding the Canada pension plan tomorrow or Monday, or not later than Tuesday, so we may take this step forward with respect to this important piece of legislation?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government is just as anxious to bring forward the Canada pension plan as is the hon. member. I must tell him that the government, as it sees its responsibility, considers that the first priority must be given to interim supply. I think that is elementary. That being the case interim supply has been indicated as the business for tomorrow and I think we will have to proceed in that way.
The next item of priority is, of eourse, the Canada pension plan resolution. The hon. member developed the argument, or really asserted the proposition, that the debate on interim supply would end at a certain date
9594	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and that one day out of the period between now and that date would not make any difference. Perhaps I should refrain from picking up that argument now either one way or the other, but its inference is pretty clear. I would merely say that I will look at the point raised by the hon. member. In the light of his remarks if it is clear that the interim supply debate is going to end on a certain day anyway regardless of how much time

is given to it in the meantime, I will certainly think over this argument and seek to bring forward the Canada pension plan at the earliest possible date that it can be brought forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Early next week, let us hope. Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Friday, Ociober 30, 1964