1965-05-14

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the practice established by my predecessors I would like to make a brief report on the ministerial meeting of NATO which was held in London this week, and also to give some impressions of my visit to Cyprus.
My purpose in visiting Cyprus was to pay respects on behalf of the Government of Canada and its people to the United Nations force in Cyprus. I went there in particular to visit the men of the Canadian contingent and to thank them for the services which they and their predecessors have rendered to the United Nations peace keeping effort.
I also took the opportunity to have discussions with President Makarios, Vice President Kuchuk and the representative of the United Nations Secretary General Mr. Bernardes. I also saw the commander of the UN force, General Thimayya, in Geneva on my way to [DOT]Cyprus. The acting commander of the force in General Thimayya's absence is Brigadier Bruce Macdonald of Edmonton, who has already gained the respect of the two communities on the Island. I left Cyprus, Mr. Speaker, prouder than ever to be a Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one could have felt otherwise after seeing the efficient and compassionate manner in which the men of the Canadian contingent are carrying out their varied duties, and I am happy to report this to my colleague the Minister of National Defence.
There is no substitute for personal observation. It was an unforgettable experience to fly deep into the Kyrenia hills where a part of the Canadian contingent carries out United Nations control duties in one of the most sensitive and heavily fortified areas on the Island. There I saw a tiny outpost marked by the flag of the United Nations and manned by Canadian soldiers, interposed between
Greek and Turkish strongpoints on nearby opposing hilltops.
Despite the delicacy and the danger of their assignment the Canadian troops, like the other contingents in the force, do not place a narrow limit on their peace keeping task. A young Canadian medical officer spends a good part of each day ministering to the tragic needs of refugees. Cypriot farmers are driven through danger areas on the way to harvest their crops.
I need not emphasize that in the midst of all the destruction, human misery and economic chaos, the United Nations is playing an indispensable role. I do not believe that the relative stability which prevails on that island today would have been possible had it not been for the United Nations force. An important task of the force is to interpose itself between the opposing lines and to patrol the areas of potential conflict so as to prevent the escalation of minor incidents.
In countless local situations the force, often represented by local commanders of very junior rank, has succeeded in negotiating a cease fire and a local settlement. When local negotiation fails the issues must be taken up with the leadership of the two communities by the force commander or the representative of the Secretary General.
At the NATO meeting I underlined the indispensable peace keeping role that the United Nations force is performing in Cyprus. It is important, however, to recognize that the effectiveness of the United Nations force may diminish in proportion to the fading of hopes for movement toward a settlement. We cannot afford to slacken the impetus toward an agreed solution.
In my conversations I naturally maintained the position that as a contributor to the United Nations force Canada would not advocate a particular solution, but I did urge at every opportunity that there should be early negotiations between the parties. I put this view not only to the President and Vice President of Cyprus but to the foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey, with whom I had private talks in London. I was therefore encouraged as I listened to the constructive statements they made in the NATO Council confirming that they had agreed to meet together with
May 14, 1965

Report on NATO and Cyprus a view to normalizing relations between Greece and Turkey and to improving the situation in Cyprus.
The NATO meetings in London provided an opportunity for an important and timely review of current problems. There was frankness and understanding; and despite the differences which admittedly exist in national viewpoints on some questions, I came away encouraged by the degree of basic cohesion and good will among members of the alliance. This meeting was a good example of the growing fact of NATO consultation. I can do no more than all my predecessors have done in reporting on these NATO meetings; that is, to respect the confidential nature of the discussions, which of course embraced vital problems of interest and concern within and beyond the NATO area. NATO now is concerned inevitably with issues of a global character, and Canada, as a founder member of NATO, is profoundly concerned with the future of the transatlantic alliance.
Last December, on Canadian initiative, it was agreed that in view of fundamental changes since 1949 inside and outside the alliance the time had now come for NATO countries to consider the future of their association and the common purposes and objectives which keep the alliance together. Our purpose was to encourage other NATO members to examine the kind of alliance that could continue to provide security for its members yet be sufficiently flexible to cope successfully with changed conditions.
At the recent meeting in London this study was given further impetus, and there is now a possibility that the future of the alliance will be the subject of continuing discussion in the Permanent Council and at the Ministerial Meeting next December in Paris, if this seems appropriate. I use the latter phrase "if this seems appropriate" advisedly, because it would be regrettable if any issue were raised which might cause any measure of serious disunity within the alliance itself.
On my way from Cyprus to London I was very glad to be able to open officially the Canadian Consulate General in Marseilles under Mr. Eugene Bussiere.
In addition to visiting Cyprus and attending the NATO meeting I had the benefit of discussions with the French Foreign Minister, M. Couve de Murville, as well as with the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Stewart, whom I met for the first time; the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Mr. Bot-tomley, and Mr. Anthony Greenwood, the

Colonial Secretary, with whom I discussed Commonwealth Caribbean questions. I profited greatly from these talks which ranged widely over topics of mutual interest. I also held useful talks with a group of Canadian heads of diplomatic missions who had assembled to discuss matters of importance concerning Western Europe.
From these talks I have returned convinced that despite present differences in the western community there is a serious common determination to consider how NATO could adjust to changing circumstances. There can be no doubt about the need for preserving this alliance in the present state of the world.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: It is a
pleasure to welcome the Secretary of State for External Affairs back among us. Had I known when he was coming I would have gone to the airport to meet him. Perhaps because of my lowly status he would find this appropriate, considering the treatment he received on one of his arrivals abroad. However, he is not a man, nor am I, to indulge in anything acrimonious or bitter. It is a pleasure to follow the Minister, but it is also something of a challenge. His style is so fluid and his syntax so varied that I am reminded of the challenge that was faced by King Richard in Ivanhoe, when his mighty sword could not find any resistance in Saladin's pillow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think the Minister, as all returning Ministers, spoke with optimism and spoke as the good international that he is. I say that in particular in his reference to the Canadian servicemen in strife-torn Cyprus, he spoke for all of us, or surely for almost all of us, when he said that looking upon their record and their performance he was prouder than ever to be a Canadian. So say we all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I quite agree with him that the UN is indeed playing an indispensable role in bringing about what he described as the relative stability in Cyprus. I think, however, in this whole matter of UN forces, quite frequently-and I know there are terrific difficulties-the emphasis upon peace keeping seems to pre-empt what might be greater efforts on peace making; and we have heard very little of the role of the UN conciliation officers in such trouble spots as Cyprus.
May 14. 196!

I am glad the Minister took some initiative in this regard in his discussions with the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey. Some newspapermen suggested that the Canadian initiative was not as great as the press releases said, but I am more of a Canadian than a Conservative and I hope it was just as great as all the press releases indicated. Certainly no matter how important and how effective is the quasi-military operation, the move must be made ever stronger toward a settlement, a conciliation, a pacification.
In reference to the NATO Council, we are faced with the constant difficulty which presents itself after any such meeting, which naturally must take place in an area of confidentiality. I think we all agree with the Minister that the NATO alliance requires at this present time a serious reappraisal, not only in the face of its growing weaknesses but in the face of modern realities in the foreign policy of the great countries of the world and the obvious and clear realignments that are taking place before our very eyes. It is difficult to comment on this, because it is difficult to know what went on.
I noted that the Minister spoke very briefly about his visit to France. I do hope that in his high level discussions there after he arrived in the City of Paris he was able to impress upon the responsible Ministers of that country the very sort of attitude which a fortnight ago he expressed in reference to the sovereign personality of this country in the international community. I note that in today's papers we find indications that continue to cause anxiety as to the movement and incursions in the field of international affairs by those who represent the Provinces in this country. The whole field of international relations is sufficiently complex, heaven knows, without its difficulties being exacerbated further by internal differences within any country.
That is all I want to say. I am glad too that the Minister reiterates the role of the UN and our continuing belief that the UN forms a basic cornerstone of our foreign policy. After I have had a chance to read the statement in full I hope that at some future date, when we have that long delayed external affairs debate, I might have an opportunity to discuss it further. Meanwhile we are glad to welcome the Minister home.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, all of us are glad to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs back
Report on NATO and Cyprus in his place. We hope his efforts will attain some measure of success, because we are sure he spent his time overseas in trying to promote peace wherever he could give some assistance in that direction. I was hoping that if we had known when he was coming back the House might have presented him with a copy of John Steinbeck's book "The Wayward Bus". The Minister would probably have appreciated that gift and would have liked to read it during the period of leisure which he will now enjoy after his peregrinations abroad.
I am sure all of us were delighted that he was able to visit the Canadian contingent working with the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus. I am sure too that the House was encouraged by the report he has given of the excellent service which the Canadian peace keeping force is rendering in Cyprus at the present time. This is the kind of role for which Canada is admirably suited, and it seems to me that increasingly all our defence plans and all our contributions to discussions on world affairs ought to be directed more and more to the part which Canada can play in peace keeping operations wherever they are required.
I am sure that all Members are pleased at any contribution which the Secretary of State for External Affairs may have been able to make toward bringing together the Greek and Turkish foreign ministers; because I think all of us are agreed that ultimately a solution in Cyprus must be found, and it can only be found by bringing the two contesting parties together as quickly as possible.
With reference to the meeting of the NATO Ministers, some press reports have suggested that Canada was probably too aggressive in promoting the role of the United Nations. I think it would be the sense of the House if I said to the Minister that I doubt whether any Canadian representative at NATO can be too aggressive about promoting the role of the United Nations. I think the voice of Canada raised at the conference on behalf of a greater role for the United Nations will receive the widespread support not only of the people of Canada but of a great many people throughout the western world.
I think all of us are glad to learn that there is going to be a continuing study as to the changes which will be required in the North Atlantic Treaty alliance. This alliance, which came into being in 1948 to meet a given situation, will have to be altered in view of the fact that the situation has
May 14, 1965

Report on NATO and Cyprus substantially changed. One of the reasons there has been considerable dissension within NATO itself is that NATO has not changed with the changed circumstances to a sufficient extent. Therefore if there is to be a study of the changed role of NATO this could result in NATO becoming an effective instrument for world peace. My own feeling is that increasingly the functions of NATO must be transferred to the United Nations, and that the day must come when NATO will be an instrument of the United Nations rather than merely a local security alliance.
On this point I should like to suggest that if NATO is studying what changes are necessary, it is not too soon for the External Affairs Committee of the House to examine this question in order that any recommendations going from the Canadian Government to NATO conferences will have the wholehearted support of all sections of the House. In a few years we shall have to decide whether Canada is going to stay in NATO, and that decision will be dependant upon what NATO's role is going to be in the future, what its function is going to be, what its objectives and purposes are. I think the External Affairs Committee should begin very soon a study of NATO's future role and its future capacity.
I hope the Government will decide to make greater use of the External Affairs Committee. There are a great many points on which Members in all parts of the House are agreed, particularly on the role which the United Nations could play in world affairs. To the extent we can work out a common foreign policy that is supported by all parties in the House, Canada's voice will be strengthened when Government representatives go to sit in the councils of the nations. I hope the External Affairs Committee will be used increasingly to work out a common policy at least on those points on which there is general agreement.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all in agreement with the welcome that has been accorded to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is also Acting Prime Minister this morning. If we had known of his arrival I am sure that not only would the hon. Member for Queens have been present to meet him, but quite a few others would have been there as well.
We followed the reports of his visits to Cyprus, Marseilles, Paris and London, and not only do we agree with his statement that he

was proud to be a Canadian but if we could set aside our partisan robes for a few minutes I think we would also say that we were proud of Canada's Foreign Minister. In fact I am sure that if some of us would be true to our own feelings for a moment we would agree that we were indignant when we learned that on his arrival at Orly airport in Paris he was not given the full red carpet treatment that Canada and her External Affairs Minister fully deserve.
This leads me to observe that the Minister said very little about his discussions with his opposite number in France. I am sure that in the light of his particular role at this time and in the light of the policies that France is obviously following, Canada must not only take the initiative but must use every ounce of her good will and her status among the nations to strengthen the amiable and agreeable situation that should exist between France and her allies. I am sure the Minister agrees that he and Canada have a very important role in this regard in addition to our role in NATO and our role in the United Nations, having particular reference to peace keeping operations.
In my view the statement the Minister has made with regard to Canada being one of the founding nations of NATO is true in that we should be much concerned about NATO's common purposes and objectives and the role of this organization in coping successfully with the changing conditions we now face which are so vastly different from conditions when NATO first came into being.
Last night we heard a report of the accusation of some member countries of NATO that the Canadian delegation was perhaps too ambitious in that its initiative was too strong for their liking, but I think we should not be too much concerned about that type of criticism. Certainly it is not good enough to stand on the status quo and think NATO can survive just because it happens to have done a good job in the past or because the presence of a peace keeping force in Cyprus has brought about a comparatively peaceful situation. Unless those who are the intentions behind the Cyprus problem, unless those who are members of NATO and among the leading member nations of the United Nations as well push forward in an aggressive and constructive way to strengthen the role of these organizations in the changing scene in the world today, we are going to fail to achieve our objectives and our over-all purpose.
Again we say it is good to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs back in our
May 14, 1965

midst. We are grateful for the work that has been done. It serves to challenge us to face the tremendous needs of the future in all the areas which his report covered.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to join with the other members of this house in welcoming back the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), upon his return to Canada from his long trip overseas.
The minister is certainly one of the most genial members of the house and I think it is always a happy occasion for all to see him back among us.
However, we are sorry about the reception he got in Paris. But I know the minister will understand that the French government was keeping the red carpet treatment, the high officials and what have you, for the next Quebec delegation which is to leave at the beginning of the week to negotiate new agreements with the French government.
In my opinion this is symbolical, because France was always a country whose culture illuminated the world, and with the Quebec government about to negotiate new agreements with that country respecting cultural affairs, it is normal that this official reception, this red carpet treatment be reserved to the Quebec government and its negotiators.
However, Mr. Speaker, we would have been happy if our Secretary of State for External Affairs had also been given such a reception, with a "Turkish rug", perhaps in view of the fact that he travelled close to Turkey before he came back to Canada.
Concerning the minister's visit to Cyprus, we would point out that a year and a half ago he asked parliament for authorization to send Canadian troops to that country so they could act as mediators and bring the necessary help to ensure an agreement and peace in that island which was threatened with a civil war as well as a war between Turkey and Greece.
At that time we were told that the operations would last six months but when that period was over two successive delays of six months were asked.
Since then Canada has been footing the bill for all that. Under the circumstances I think the minister should do his best to convince the other countries concerned to make an effort to come to an agreement as soon as possible so that Cyprus can continue to attend to her business by herself and that other countries do not have to spend millions of dollars to restore peace in the island.
DEBATES	1289
Northwest Territories Advisory Committee
I feel that the countries which have a military force in Cyprus must come up with a pacific solution, since they have now been between the two groups long enough to know what kind of an agreement could be negotiated and respected.
With regard to NATO, we did not get much in formation.
We feel, however, that the minister should strive to give a new direction to the work and goals of NATO and, in my opinion, one of the aims of NATO should be to provide assistance to under-developed countries. Such assistance should be provided in the form of food, technical assistance, agricultural products and farm machinery.
This would be the best way in which NATO could contribute to world peace.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I neglected to table the communique, as is always done, and to ask the House that as on other occasions it be made an appendix to our proceedings for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of communique referred to see appendix.]



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: On Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources announced in the House the establishment of an advisory commission on the development of government in the Northwest Territories. I am pleased this morning to be able to report that Mr. Jean Beetz, LL.L., M.A., of Montreal has accepted the invitation to serve as a member of this important commission.

Mr. Beetz, a professor in the Montreal faculty of law, is a well-known expert in constitutional law.
Like the two other members of the commission, Professor Beetz is a young man of high repute.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that Professor Beetz will bring vigour and insight to the

May 14, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry work of the commission, and we know he will make a significant contribution to its undertaking.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I realize, of course, that he has been away and probably out of touch with events here in Canada; nevertheless in his role as Minister of External Affairs I am sure that when he visited Paris the Government of France would have acquainted him with this matter and he may have an answer. My question is based on newspaper stories appearing this morning to the effect that the Quebec cultural minister, Mr. Pierre La-porte, is negotiating a second distinct agreement between the Government of France and the Province of Quebec. There is a conflicting statement by officials in Ottawa who say there is no question of a second agreement. Can the Acting Prime Minister enlighten the House as to the correct situation?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me some notice of this question. I can assure the hon. Member that I was aware of the matter. When I was in Paris last week the matter of cultural affairs was discussed by me with members of the Government of France. In fact I may say that the head of the cultural affairs department of the Quai d'Orsay, M. Basdevant, will be coming to Ottawa on May 25 to discuss this general subject of cultural affairs.
The House will perhaps recall that I previously indicated that when I saw the French Foreign Minister last December it was agreed between us that we would execute what is called in French an accord cadre, a general agreement, in this whole area. It would provide a foundation for separate ententes by any of the Provincial jurisdictions. Some of the Provinces other than Quebec may be very anxious to share in some of the cultural exchanges which the Government of France undertakes with many countries in the world. Hon. Members are also aware that the general question of making agreements affecting matters that fall within the scope and legislative competence of the Provinces, such as educational and cultural matters, were discussed by the Prime Minister and Premier Lesage last week end.

Hon. Members will appreciate that in view of these discussions with the Quebec authorities and the anticipated talks with French representatives, I feel that I would not want to go any further. I have, however, just been informed that Mr. Laporte has made a statement in the Quebec Legislature this morning, and I am advised that it would be proper for me to make reference to one or two things he has said, if I can find the document.


Mr. Knowles:: This hour has seven days.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I find that being Acting Prime Minister imposes so many obligations. I can assure hon. gentlemen that while I am looking, I am also thinking.


Michael Starr: Why does it take you so long to think?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It does not take me so long to think. If I may give some advice to the younger Members of the House, it is this: When you lose your documents make sure when you find them you have the right ones. I should like to refer to the French text that I have. Mr. Laporte is reported as having said:

The trip of the minister for cultural affairs to Paris has only been decided a few days ago. It has been deemed necessary to carry on negotiations already under way with France and to prepare the way for other negotiations. It should be noted that the timing of this trip will allow the minister for cultural affairs to attend the premiere of a play put on by the "Theatre du Rideau Vert" on May 19.
When I was in Paris, I was too busy to go to the theatre.
The deputy minister for cultural affairs, Mr. Fregault. has, at my request, sent a letter to the deputy minister for federal-provincial affairs, Mr. Morin, covering in general terms the subjects to be studied in Paris. That letter, in my opinion, should be added to the file of negotiations underway between the government of Canada and the province of Quebec.
Certain people seem to have been anxious to interpret my attitude as a quarrel with Ottawa, rather than tc see it for what it is: the hope to reach an understanding on this most ticklish question.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the arrangements by which the Province of Quebec and any other country, in particular France, can enter into agreements, have been defined so the province may not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Federal Government in future?
May 14, 1965


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is so much a question of definition. That is taken care of, of course, by the constitutional allocation of powers. There is a recognition by France of the necessity of the accord cadre, and there is recognition of the constitutional allocation of powers provided for in section 92, but none of this disturbs the provision in the constitution as to the treaty making powers of the Federal Government.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he assure the house that he will not do anything to prevent the province of Quebec from concluding such an agreement with the French government and that he will even cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the Quebec authorities to enable them to reach such an agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, when we have all the details we would act as we did last February, that is to say that through an exchange of notes between the federal government and the French government, the agreements reached by the provinces could be given validity.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, can the Minister advise the House if, while he was in Paris, he made it quite plain to his counterpart in the Government of France that only the Government of Canada is capable of entering into binding, effective international agreements; and did he do so in that clear and concise language of which he is the exemplary exponent in this House?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have been the subject of so many compliments this morning that I think there must be something wrong. I can only say that it was not necessary. The Government of France have given every evidence from the time of our discussions last September that they understand the legal situation in international law.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, before asking my question may I compliment the Secretary of State for Ex-
Inquiries of the Ministry ternal Affairs on being able to lose his documents without losing his poise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: His poise or his avoirdupois?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The scales report no loss of the latter. May I ask him a question respecting press reports from London which credit him with giving public endorsation to the United States proposal for an inter-American peace force, and ask has he endorsed this proposal of the United States? If so, what does he envisage as being the role of such a force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was asked at a press conference if I had any views about the interposition of a force under the Organization of American States, and I did say that while as a strong United Nations man I prefer to see operations of this kind come under the United Nations, it could be desirable in the circumstances that there should be an intervention made by some collective security organization. Within the meaning of Article 51 of the Charter it was perfectly legal for a regional organization to assume responsibilities of a collective kind to maintain the peace.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question,
I ask the Minister will he agree that Canada's contribution to any peace keeping force should be confined solely to a United Nations peace keeping force? Could the Minister give some assurance that Canada is not going to be committed to any inter-American peace keeping force which is not authorized by the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been no suggestion that Canada should participate in this particular collective operation. However, I would not want to give any final judgment as to the relationship between these regional collective organizations and what I hope will soon become established practice in the United Nations itself.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs relating to the NATO conference. Did the Minister at that conference advance the proposal of the Canadian government, announced over two years ago, to negotiate out of its nuclear role within the NATO alliance and within NORAD?

May 14. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I recognize my hon. friend's persistent and proper interest in this question. The conference was a meeting of foreign ministers. The defence ministers will be meeting at the end of this month. The conference, of course, was not the particular milieu in which, even if there had been the desired disposition and occasion, to raise such an interesting question.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the proposal for a multinational nuclear force was discussed at the NATO meeting and, if so, whether any decision was made in regard to proceeding with it, or of substituting for it the British proposal in regard to a force of this kind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the reply I have just made would partially apply to the question put by the hon. gentleman. There was no discussion in the ministerial meetings on this question, but I may tell the hon. Member that a working group which has been established has before it for consideration two multilateral forces an allied nuclear force proposed by Her Majesty's Government in Britain and the United States proposal for a multilateral force which has undergone some modification. Canada has been asked to take part in the deliberations of this working committee, but as the invitation reached us only four or five days before the meeting was called the Government has not yet had the opportunity of deciding whether it will participate.



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that early this week we learned of the espionage activities of two foreign agents belonging to the diplomatic corps here in Ottawa; in view of the fact that yesterday one Michelle Duclos, a citizen of Canada, admitted her participation in a subversive plot in the United States; also in view of the fact that a number of Canadian citizens are being held on similar charges of conspiracy-I refer to Michele Saunier, Jean Giroux, Raymond Sabourin-and in view of the fact that only a few days ago a certain Gilles Legault committed suicide in jail while being held on 
similar charges; also in view of the fact that it is reported that a man was convicted yesterday in the United States of having been a spy for Russia in that country, he having been active in Canada as well, does the Minister of Justice not think it is high time that his Department published for the civil servants of Canada, some sort of guide relating to espionage, subversive activities and conspiracy in this country, such as has been done in Great Britain?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken due note of the remarks made yesterday by the hon. Member in the form of a question which was to the same effect.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a question to ask but I am not sure to which Minister it should be addressed. In the circumstances I will direct it to the Leader of the House. In line with the desire of the opposition to speed up the business of this House, when may I expect an answer to the question I placed on the order paper on April 6, nearly six weeks ago, regarding a possible advance rental agreement for office space in a building now being constructed on the corner of O'Connor and Metcalfe Streets?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Presideni of the Privy Council):: If the hon. Member will give me the number of the question I will be glad to have the matter looked into.


James Ernest Pascoe: It is No. 29.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State and ask when he expects to answer a question of mine that has been on the order paper since April 8, a question concerning very important and, as a matter of fact, interesting data which this House would no doubt like to have on the extracurricular activities of the B and B Commission. This question is No. 96.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to inquire into it and refer this particular problem to the Prime Minister's office.
May 14. 1965



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based on a recent decision by a Saskatchewan court to the effect that Indian people and tribes covered by treaty are to be provided with medical care at no cost to them. I wish to ask the Minister what steps her Department or the Government are taking to comply with this decision by providing medical care in keeping with the treaty obligations.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: It was only this morning that I noticed the news report. I immediately discussed this matter with my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Hon. Members will appreciate that if it was a treaty which was under consideration, the ramifications of the judgment are wider than might otherwise be the case. The matter will, of course, receive urgent consideration in my Department. I notice it has been intimated that there may be a further appeal in connection with this case.
I am sure the hon. Member realizes that this is a most significant development in the evolution of the rights of our native peoples. The decisions of the courts as to their rights will be watched very carefully and Government policy will, if necessary, have to adjust to whatever decisions the courts may reach.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. May I point out at the outset that this is not an evolution but rather a restitution of native Indian rights. Would the Minister in her consideration of this matter take into account the necessity of having this service provided to all native Indians in Canada regardless of whether their particular treaties cover it, so as to ensure uniformity in the application of the service?


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: A further supplementary question. I wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could tell the House whether the interdepartmental committee set up to examine some of the other rights which have been called into question earlier is in fact working, and when we may expect some action from that committee.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I thank the hon. Member for having given me notice of his question. Before answering it, with the permission of the House I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the presence in the gallery today of a very distinguished Canadian, Chief Bob Smallboy of the Ermine-skin band of Indians. He is a Cree, and he has told me he considers himself to be one of Her Majesty's officers. He made his first journey outside of Alberta, on this occasion, to discuss with the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs treaty and other matters which he considers of major importance to his people. He is accompanied by an interpreter because his knowledge of English is limited. It is a great pleasure to see the Chief here in the Gallery today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Dealing with the question put by the hon. Member for the Northwest Territories, I am pleased to assure the House that the interdepartmental committee has begun to work. Their work has begun and they are making some progress. Our Department is represented by Dr. G. C. Monture and another representative. It is too early for my report to be expected, but they are actively engaged in their work.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship. Bearing in mind that this decision by a Saskatchewan court actually supports the contention of Indians over many years as to alleged breaches of treaties, would the Minister give earnest consideration to intervening in this litigation in the various appeals which we may expect, to support the contention of the Indians on this issue?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Again I thank the hon. Member for having given me notice of his question. I can assure the hon. Member we have already ordered a copy of the reasons for judgment of the judge in Battleford, Saskatchewan. It will be carefully studied. I will then discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Justice and with my other colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to determine whether this is an appropriate case in which to intervene. In any event I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will see to it that adequate counsel is provided, if so requested by the Indian concerned in the prosecution or in the protection of his rights in the different courts.

May 14, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
NATIONAL DEFENCE	BROADCASTING



CYPRUS-REDUCTION IN CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN PEACE KEEPING OPERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday I asked the Minister of National Defence whether additional contributions would be made by other NATO nations to the peace keeping operation on Cyprus as a result of what is reported to be an additional measure of support gained by the Secretary of State for External Affairs from the NATO Council. The hon. gentleman suggested that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be here himself today and would probably be in a position to answer the question.
My specific question is, then, does this additional measure of support by the NATO Council mean that member countries will be making a larger contribution to the peace keeping operation on Cyprus, thus reducing Canada's very high share to some extent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not preclude the possibility that this could take place, but I would have no justification for saying positively that this would be the result. The question of the force will come up for consideration on June 26. The mandate will then be a matter for consideration. As one country has indicated that it proposes to reduce the strength of its force I took advantage of the opportunity to make an appeal to the other countries having membership in the United Nations to share in the responsibility, of keeping the force up to its present level. Beyond that at the moment I cannot say anything which would be very helpful.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Did any of the other nations belonging to the NATO Council make commitments that they might be able to provide additional strength for this force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, sir. The hon. Member will understand, of course, that in practice there has to be an agreement with the host country, as it were-in this case Cyprus-as to the participation of any proposed component.



DELAY IN REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the Secretary of State can inform the House whether the apparent undue delay in the receipt by the Government of the report of the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting may have been caused by the reported resignation or dismissal of the Secretary of that Committee, Mr. Sheppard.


Maurice Lamontagne: No. Mr. Speaker.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to my original question. In view of the fact that the Government has stated that no consideration will be given to granting sums of money to the C.B.C. for the extension of television services until this report is received, and in view of the fact that tens of thousands of Canadian taxpayers are waiting for the services to which they are entitled, cannot the Secretary of State inform the House as to the reason for the apparent undue delay in receiving the report of this Committee, particularly when it is reported that a member of his own staff who is the Secretary has either resigned or has been dismissed from this Committee? I think we are entitled to know whether this is holding up the report for which we are waiting.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry and investigation carried on by the Fowler committee is probably the most serious attempt that has ever been made in this country to look at broadcasting policy in general. This committee was appointed in May of last year, and I do not think a little more than a year is too long a time to make a fundamental reappraisal of such an important problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Simpson: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State advise the House why the Secretary of this committee either resigned or has been dismissed?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which is the exclusive responsibility of the committee itself.
May 14, 1965



TORONTO-TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF RADIO STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this stage to refer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Port Arthur on April 29 concerning radio station CHFI in Toronto. I have received the following information from the Board of Broadcast Governors.
The application before the Board on March 24 dealt with the transfer of shares in 1540 Limited, Toronto. The approval of the Board in such matters is required by section 118 of the radio regulations. In these cases the Board cannot choose between contending applicants; it can only deal with such applicants as have already entered into a conditional contract of purchase and sale of company shares with the original owner of those shares.
In this instance the Board was satisfied with the financial resources of the applicants and with the programming policy the applicants were willing to follow. Although representations were received by the Board objecting to the transfer, there was no evidence in these representations to change the Board's views. On April 8, 1965 the Board recommended accordingly.



RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING RADIO STATION CJOR, VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: If I am allowed to do so, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to some questions that were asked of me in the House on May 7 concerning the licence for radio station CJOR in Vancouver. I am advised by the Chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors that it would not be the intention of the Board to hear representations in this connection on the west coast. By coincidence the March hearing of the Board, which dealt with the renewal of the licence for CJOR, was held in Vancouver, and representations from local organizations were received at that time. The next meeting of the Board is scheduled for September and is to be held in Ottawa. I am further advised by the Chairman of the Board that its recommendation with regard to the licence renewal would not preclude an application being made to the Board by a reorganized company that would include the present shareholders in CJOR Limited.
With respect to the further question asked by the Member for Vancouver East, the in-
Inquiries of the Ministry formation available to the Board is that Mrs. Chandler, who following the death of her husband became the major shareholder in CJOR Limited, and which transfer was approved by the Board, holds dual citizenship in the United States and in Canada. The requirement of Canadian citizenship in this respect is governed by section 14 of the Broadcasting Act, and under this provision the fact that Mrs. Chandler is an American citizen as well as a Canadian citizen was no impediment to her holding a licence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, regarding the report the Minister has received from the Board of Broadcast Governors concerning radio station CJOR in the Vancouver area. I understood the Minister to say that the Board, at its September hearings, would not preclude an application from the present CJOR management, provided it were reorganized. Could I ask the Minister if he would inquire of the Board of Broadcast Governors whether they would clarify for the public what is meant by a reorganized company; because a great many people on the Pacific coast are anxious to see the present policies of CJOR continue, and I think they would want to know just what the Board of Broadcast Governors would consider constituted a properly reorganized company.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to ask the Chairman of the Board if he is ready and willing to determine what would be the reorganization that he would expect.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Is the Minister yet prepared to answer the question I asked of the Prime Minister some two weeks ago concerning the involvement of the Federal Government in the bankruptcy of the Walsh Advertising Company?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I can, of course, in relation to my own duties, answer only that part of the question which related to the investigation by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in connection with this bankruptcy.
The answer is as follows. Walsh Advertising Company Limited, Toronto, made an

Mar 14, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry assignment in bankruptcy on April 2, 1965, and the first meeting of the creditors had been called for April 20, 1965. Under the Bankruptcy Act the Superintendent of Bankruptcy supervises the administration of the estates in bankruptcy by trustees, and it is not within his competence to investigate the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy of an individual bankrupt. For that reason I have to advise that it is not proposed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy of Walsh Advertising Company Limited, at least by or through the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, because this would be beyond the scope of his jurisdiction.
A second question had been put by the hon. Member for Grey-Bruce asking whether consideration was being given to providing some compensation to the 581 creditors of that company, mainly in the fields of radio and newspaper, whose claims now total in excess of half a million dollars. The answer is that it has not been the practice for the Government to pay compensation to unsatisfied creditors of a bankrupt debtor, and the claims of these creditors will undoubtedly be dealt with by the trustee of the bankrupt estate in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, taking into account the funds that are available. Any other inquiry which might relate to any interest the Government may or may not have in this particular bankruptcy would, of course, be the responsibility of any Department of Government that might have been affected.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In replying to my question the Minister has not answered the fundamental point I originally made, which concerned the implications of involvement of this government in appointing the V/alsh Advertising Company Limited to take over a public relations advertising job for the Canadian Army. There are implications much more serious than those the Minister has touched upon; he has merely touched upon the mechanical aspect. What I should like to ask is whether the Government is going to give us a reply as to the political implications of this appointment. The fact that this company was dismissed for cause by the former Government and was reappointed by this Government immediately it took office is the question in which I am interested.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to accept any of the implications contained in the statement which has just been made by the hon. gentleman, but I know he will
FMr. Favreau.7
appreciate that their very nature is such that it is not within the scope of my duties as Minister of Justice to deal with them. Therefore I shall see to it that the question is referred to the appropriate Minister.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: A further supplementary question. I have not given the Minister notice of this question so perhaps he will have to look into it, but I want to ask whether this is the reason that advertising for recruits for the three forces has now been transferred from this agency to Vickers & Benson Limited?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely we are getting into the realm of arguing the question rather than stating it. In any event where is that pressing urgency, the immediate necessity for answering the question at this time? Perhaps the hon. Member could put it on the order paper.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, the urgency is this. A question was answered in this House regarding Vickers & Benson Limited about a month ago in connection with this matter. A different answer was given, and I want to see whether this answer ties in, and whether this is the reason for the previous answer. That is the urgency.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Forbes (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. My question is prompted by the number of inquiries I have had from automobile dealers in my constituency. Did the Minister meet representatives of the Automobile Dealers Association yesterday, and what was the position of the Government regarding new and used cars? Would he advise the House on Government policy in this regard?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I did have a meeting with representatives of the Automobile Dealers Association. I outlined to them the intentions of the Government in the purchasing of cars for civil government departments, and the intention of the Government to make this analogous with the system hitherto used for the Department of National Defence. When explained to the representatives of the Automobile Dealers Association, and having sought their advice, they went away, in my view, quite satisfied.
May 14, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the Minister tell the House when the running trades employees of the railroads will be receiving their income tax refunds, which I believe are being withheld pending some decision by his Department?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular returns to which my hon. friend has referred, but I will be pleased to look into the matter and give a reply later.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like to point out that the question period has now been going on for more than 50 minutes and that not one member of our group has been able to get recognition by the Chair to ask a question. Yet you have given the floor to several members of all other parties. In fact, I am the only member of our group who has been able to put in a question, and it was a supplementary one at that.
No member of our group has been recognized since the beginning of the question period whereas the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has asked two questions, one of which was fairly long, and a good number of Conservative and N.D.P. members have also been able to ask some.
I submit that the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe the criticism is really justified in fact, but in any event the Chair has to use its best discretion. The hon. Member who has just spoken made a long statement on motions, and if the Chair did not see anyone rising in that group it may be because he is blind in one eye; but he does his best.



GEORGES LEMAY-REPORTED VISIT TO MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition inquired as to whether one Georges Lemay, a most wanted man, had entered Canada on April 23 and, after a short stay, had returned to the United States. I undertook to make a statement on the matter today.
In the course of his remarks the right hon. gentleman referred to certain articles in the press. I said that I had read one of the articles, and I have since had the opportunity of reading another one. I have made an investigation, and I am informed that on January 23, 1962 the Montreal police put out a "Wanted" circular for Lemay in connection with the robbery of the Bank of Nova Scotia, which had occurred on July 1, 1961. On January 31,1962, the R.C.M.P. were brought into the picture and I am informed that they distributed information on a routine basis to police forces in Canada, in different parts of the United States and elsewhere. Such an alert by the police does not, so far as I have been able to ascertain, include the Canadian immigration service. Our service, the immigration service, is concerned with aliens coming into Canada, not with people leaving Canada.
In this connection I might say that the first newspaper article referred to by the right hon. gentleman in his statement yesterday was a press item which alleged that the said Lemay had been in Vancouver in 1963. Now, Mr. Speaker, he may or may not have been in Vancouver, but even if he were this is not a matter which would involve my Department. Lemay is a Canadian. So far as I know-and I do not think I would be here if the circumstances were otherwise-going to Vancouver does not involve going through immigration.
With regard to the other suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that the said Lemay had entered Canada on April 23 of this year, and after a short stay, had returned to the United States, may I say that after careful consideration I do not consider it proper to comment at this time on this aspect. One of the said newspaper articles alleges that the U.S. immigration service has charged Lemay with illegal entry into the United States at Rouses Point, some 70 miles from Montreal. The article alleges that Lemay represented himself to be a United

May 14, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry States citizen, and that he produced a United States driving licence in the name of Rene Roy. Rouses Point is a U.S. border point. There is no Canadian port by that name. I might say there are several ports on the Canadian side that are served by a series of roads that come out from Rouses Point, but the immigration duties with regard to cars at these points are conducted by customs officers, not by immigration officers.
In any event, in the same article referred to by the right hon. gentleman a woman who claimed to be Mrs. Lemay is said to have denied that her husband did return to the United States on that occasion. She claims, according to the article, that he never left the United States and so could not have returned to the United States. Therefore this matter, being the subject of a charge in the United States courts, is sub judice, and I do not think I should comment on the truth or otherwise of the newspaper statements. However, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fitting for me to say to Members who are interested that in this particular incident, that, as a result of the effective co-operation of the authorities, including the police of Montreal, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and police officials in the United States, a much wanted man has been arrested and presumably he will be returned to Canada in due course under extradition proceedings.



DORION COMMISSION-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the Minister inform the House when he expects the report of the Dorion Commission to be filed with the Government?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, of course I do not expect the report of the Dorion Commission. It will be received in due course by the Government.



APPEARANCE IN NEW YORK COURT OF MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the mention in a New York court of the names of the Secretary of State and the Postmaster General, can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether they have been asked to appear or will appear as witnesses either for the defence

or the prosecution in the trial of perjury charges relating to certain aspects of New York City administration?


Mr. Speaker:: Important as this question obviously is in the view of the hon. Member who asked it, nevertheless it should be put on the Order Paper.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Following a speech he apparently made on the Fulton-Favreau formula, the Quebec students association feels that the minister has a very poor opinion of the spirit of Quebec. According to a press release of this association, democracy is in a sad way when people are expected to follow blindly politicians who have not grasped the fundamentals of the problems of Quebec.
Could the minister add anything to that statement?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously more a statement of opinion than a question. The hon. member can have his own opinion on the value of this formula which the government feels has been considered and adopted in the interests of all Canadians, and in the very best interests-and I say this sincerely-of the people of the province of Quebec.
The hon. member should remember that this formula, at least its substance, had been discussed with all the provinces in 1961 and had been accepted and recommended by the attorneys general of all the provinces at the conference of provincial premiers, and that the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada had recommended that it be submitted to parliament.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State arising out of the questions asked him yesterday with relation to the reported trouble in the administration of the Canadian
May 14. 1965



Centennial Commission. Having read yesterday's questions and the Minister's answers in Hansard, my question is, will the Minister undertake at least to consider making an early and comprehensive report to the House on the administrative situation with regard to the Centennial Commission, possibly with suggestions for improving the situation?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to see Mr. Fisher as soon as he returns to Ottawa. Following that interview and discussion I will see whether it is necessary for me to make a statement to the House. But quite apart from making a statement to the House on the affairs of the Centennial Commission, may I say that the Commission itself would certainly welcome meeting a group of members from all parties, if this appears to be desirable, to discuss the programs and projects it has in mind. If there is a request made to this effect I am sure the Commission and its staff will be very happy to meet with Members of the House.


Barry Mather: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister think it proper to recommend the setting up of a committee of the House to go into this matter?


Maurice Lamontagne: I do not think it would be desirable to have a committee, because the committee might have very little to do. If a group of Members representing all parties could hold special meetings occasionally with the staff of the Commission, I think this would be a much more informal procedure and probably more information could be obtained in this way than otherwise.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour because of the fact that the Minister of Labour left the House a few minutes ago. I apologize for not sending notice, but the question is very urgent and was given to me just prior to my coming into the House. In view of the fact that President McLaughlin of the Seafarers' International Union continuing regime has made representations to the Minister of Transport with respect to the undermanning of ships of companies with which his union has an agreement, does the 22620-84
Inquiries of the Ministry Parliamentary Secretary not consider that these complaints largely arise from the unsatisfactory agreement signed by the union with the companies with the approval of the trustees?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Labour is absent because he had an appointment to attend a joint meeting of the construction industry officials and labour union representatives, but I will be pleased to bring this question to his attention immediately upon the adjournment of the House for lunch.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary I suppose the question now has to be considered in order, but at the time the Chair felt it was more of a statement of opinion than a question.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could ask a related question directed to the Acting Minister of Transport. Does he not consider that the greatest contributing factor to the undermanning of ships is the failure of this and previous Governments to pass regulations under the Canada Shipping Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the Minister received a telegram from the National Committee of the Canadian Corrections Association protesting his department's plans for the building of special detention institutions? If so, has the Minister replied to that telegram and in what manner?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say I do not recall the exact telegram having been brought to my attention yet, but I shall certainly inquire into the matter. I am pleased to say that in the very near future the House Leader will be calling the resolution providing for the appointment of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons precisely to look into the physical and material conditions of detention in penitentiaries, which I would

May 14. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry hope would include looking into the actual plans and programs tor the construction of detention institutions.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister give consideration to holding up the letting of any more contracts for these special detention units until the Committee has had an opportunity to look into the question and to hear representations?


Guy Favreau: I shall be pleased to consider the matter.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this the same committee the Minister promised us some eight months ago?


Guy Favreau: A few minutes ago the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue rose so quickly to put his question that I was, unintentionally on his part, deprived of an opportunity to answer the last question by the hon. Member for Skeena. I must say that the Committee to which I have just referred in answer to the previous question is the one to which reference is made in the Speech from the Throne. If the House would immediately give its consent to Item No. 10 on the order paper, I would be very pleased to agree and we would see that the Committee is set up as early as possible. I would ask the House Leader to attempt this in a few minutes.



WATER LEVELS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources but in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. Will the Parliamentary Secretary state whether consideration is being given to enlarging the terms of reference of the International Joint Commission so it can consider the subject of the diversion of the waters of James Bay and adjacent rivers into the Great Lakes to alleviate the water level situation? Is the urgency of the matter being kept in mind, inasmuch as the Commission will be holding its last sitting on the subject of the low water levels of the Great Lakes on May 26 and so far, because of the Commission's re-

stricted terms of reference, Mr. Tom Kierans has not been able to make his presentation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether any such representations are being made, but when Mr. Kierans appeared before the Committee on Mines, Forests and Waters with his suggestion I think the matter was pretty fully dealt with at that time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the Parliamentary Secretary did not understand the question. The request is to have the terms of reference of the International Joint Commission enlarged so that submissions can be made by Mr. Kierans.


John Napier Turner: I understand that such a request would have to be presented jointly by the Governments of Canada and the United States. The International Joint Commission, on its own motion, would not have that power. [DOT] (12:40 p.m.)



BANK OF CANADA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-101, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Some of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, have been asking me to make this interesting since it has been a very dull morning. I am afraid I cannot come through with anything exciting on the Bank of Canada Act. I spoke briefly last night and I only intend to take a little time this morning.
There are one or two aspects of the Bill with which I did not deal last night to which I should like to refer this morning. Before doing so I should like to repair an omission of last night. I neglected to associate myself with the Minister's remarks relating to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I have been very much impressed when I have been in other countries, having usually arranged to meet the Minister of Finance or the Governor of the Central Bank, sometimes both, when invariably Mr. Rasminsky's name has come up. He has been referred to in terms of the highest admiration. I think we can consider ourselves very fortunate to have a man who is acknowledged to be one of the world's experts in this difficult field as the Governor of our Central Bank.
May 14, 1965

The other important section of the Bill to which I did not refer last night is the one which alters the secondary reserve regulations of the Bank of Canada, or rather gives statutory authority to the secondary reserves that were the result of a voluntary agreement between the Central Bank and the chartered banks up until this time. It seems to me this is a wise move. It will give the Government a bit more flexibility in the use of monetary policy for carrying out their general economic purposes than would have been the case if we continued with this so-called voluntary arrangement.
There is, however, one aspect of this whole question that I think might well be stressed today, and that is the use of monetary policy as a means of expansion and development of the economy. I should like to throw out a suggestion which is based, shall I say, on the views of a great many economists, some of whom I have consulted personally and some of whom I have consulted via the written word. This has to do with the fixed exchange rate and the possible advantage that might accrue from reverting to a floating exchange rate such as we had up until a year or two ago.
I am well aware of our agreement under the International Monetary Fund agreement, and the International Monetary Fund might gnash their teeth a bit. However, it does seem the Minister might well explore this possibility, because I think there can be no doubt that the existence of a fixed exchange rate does, to a great extent, limit the Government's power to use monetary policy in pursuit of domestic government policies. The weapon has to be ready at all times to be used to support Canadian currency against any downward pressures.
I know there are contrary opinions with regard to this, but I hope at some point the Minister might express his views on this subject, either in the House or before the Banking and Commerce Committee. I think the article which appears in this morning's Globe and Mail quoting Dr. Bora Laskin, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Toronto, might have some bearing on this question. Professor Laskin charges Federal Legislatures with having allowed a steady attrition of Federal powers since the Second World War, and the lack of boldness for experiments necessary to expand them. He is quoted as saying this:
It seems to me a truism that power contracts by the failure to use it.
Bank of Canada Act
There are problems of national importance which can only be solved by the Federal Government, but it often is reluctant to face the struggle involved.
He suggests that part of the reason for this reluctance can be traced to the reaction against Federal regulation following the end of the Second World War. However, there is another field in which it seems to me this initiative might be taken, and that is the more positive use of the government's fiscal and monetary powers with regard to overcoming the problem of the so-called designated areas. It has seemed to me that the Government has been altogether too timid, too careful, too cautious, and is hoping to achieve the purpose it has in mind with rather inadequate weapons in the way of carrots in the form of tax exemptions, depreciation allowances and so on, and not being prepared to take any definite economic steps itself by the use of its fiscal and monetary powers. I hope the Minister will consider this and let us know at some time if the Government has taken under consideration the possible advantages of negotiating with the I.M.F. for a return to a floating exchange rate such as prevailed up until a few years ago.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-101, to amend the Bank of Canada Act, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) introduced last night shows that the evolution of the monetary system has become irreversible.
We cannot really say that this bill offers any stunning reforms. Is it the minister's modesty that held him back, or is it the power of the Canadian bankers' association upon the party's electoral funds that restrained him from bringing in some major amendments that would have allowed the Canadian economy to progress at the same rate as the population growth? I leave it to my colleagues to answer the question.
We know that the Minister of Finance is a man who wants to repatriate the Canadian economy, but I see no proposed amendment to the Bank of Canada Act which could favour such a repatriation. The Bank of Canada could play a more important part by freeing capital in the private sector and by directing it toward industrial, commercial and agricultural investments.
In his 1964 annual report, the governor of the Bank of Canada mentioned that 14.6 per cent of the debt of Canada, or $3,239

May 14, 1965
Bank of Canada Act
million was held by the Bank of Canada, that chartered banks held 15.9 per cent or $3,691 million of that debt, that foreigners held 8.9 per cent of Canada bonds and, finally, that 60.6 per cent of Canadians had $12 billion in Canada bonds.
The amount of securities kept by chartered banks is too large.
As regards the proportion of 60 per cent held by Canadians, that does not mean individuals, because in fact, the amount of Canada bonds that Canadians, as individuals, keep as investments, is under 10 per cent.
Therefore, the part played by the Bank of Canada must increase tremendously before it takes over most securities issued or guaranteed by the Canadian government.
Of course, I am very happy to note that this measure will restore the supreme authority of the government in monetary policy matters and that it incorporates the bill that I am introducing for the third time in this house and which bears this year No. C-9, in order to remove all misleading words on our bank notes. Here is what the minister said on that matter as can be seen on page 1282 of yesterday's Hansard:
A related amendment Is proposed in respect of notes of the Bank of Canada to remove the description "payable to bearer on demand". Since these notes are themselves legal tender and have never in fact been convertible into gold, the present wording is unnecessary and in some quarters liable to misinterpretation.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a statement which I consider as very interesting.
The legislation now before us also clearly recognizes the inconvertibility of our currency. The old legislation could easily mislead a layman in that matter. As early as 1962, I made every effort to destroy that legend of a gold reserve which, according to many people, guaranteed our currency In view of the fact that from now on it will be specifically recognized that our currency has not been convertible into gold since 1940, I hope that the house will easily pass Bill No. C-25 which I introduce again this year in order to promote our international trade in goods and services by enabling the Bank of Canada to keep in its foreign exchange reserves non-convertible currencies like ours, up to a maximum $500 million.
Finally, the most important amendment to the Bank of Canada Act that the bill should have made, namely that concerning chartered banks' reserves, is but an illusion. Such a measure will, in fact, give more power to the commercial banks. The regalities as to the
[Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi) .1
issuing of new bank money will still be, almost exclusively, the prerogative of the chartered or commercial banks. When will it be realized that if the government is to be the sovereign authority as regards monetary policies, it should not surrender the privilege of issuing new credit to private banking institutions? Such a privilege should be the prerogative of the Bank of Canada, under the aegis of a national credit council.
Even if the minister states that the proposals changing the reserves of the chartered banks will reinforce the Bank of Canada's monetary policy, I disagree with him.
Some people think that cash reserves consist of dollar bills and coins; actually, such reserves only mean any deposit of a chartered bank with the Bank of Canada. The commercial banks' power to create money will seem slightly limited but, in practice, that power will be unlimited if you consider the fact that to keep a constant cash reserve as required, banks only have to deposit cheques issued by the government of Canada, and you can imagine how many cheques the federal government issues every day.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the Minister of Finance that he has missed a wonderful opportunity to go down in history as one of the world's greatest financial geniuses. I have admiration for the minister, but it is not too late, since he has the required authority to give the world a stimulating example of greatness for our country.
Last night, after the sitting, I read in La Presse a statement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) who exclaimed: Canadians fill up jails twice as fast as cradles.
What is the basic reason for that situation? Is it that the present financial system, under which the nation, governments and private citizens are always getting further into debt, makes it impossible for our young people to look to a better future. That system does not enable them to develop normally, according to the talents given them by Providence.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
May 14, 1965



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have a few minutes to express my views on the government measure introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have the right to expect much more than what the minister is proposing. While the Canadian citizen is becoming more and more concerned with the idea of monetary reform, the minister is asking us to delete just a few words from the Bank of Canada notes and, even if those words are inaccurate, that will not increase the value of the bank notes. As monetary reforms go, that is not much.
One thing that is more welcome is where the government wants to take up again its responsibility as regards the monetary policy and its implementation. But here again, it may be that the governor of the Bank of Canada will have to be replaced, if the government wants to apply a truly Canadian policy that could benefit the whole population; the minister said it last night, as recorded in the official report of the debates, on page 1280, second to last line of the right-hand column:
If the government of the day ever issued a directive to the governor to execute a monetary policy which he felt was contrary to the public interest it can be presumed he would resign rather than accept such a responsibility.
In that case, it would be the opinion of the governor which would prevail. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I fear that the Minister of Finance-whether it be the present minister or another one-might be reluctant when the time comes to apply certain economic measures; and the Canadian economic policy is, after all, the responsibility of a single man.
There is another point of great concern to me: chartered banks will be granted greater powers to create credit by being able to reduce their reserve from 8 to 7 per cent. I maintain that this power to create credit should be restricted to the Bank of Canada, at the service of the Canadian government.
The obsolete financial system forced upon us by the old-time parties has resulted in a huge debt of $26 billion for a population of under 20 million, and then we have to pay $1,100 million every year in interest to the controllers of credit. Now, the minister intends to give them even more power so that
Bank of Canada Act
they might extend their control further. Mr. Speaker, this power should be given back to the Bank of Canada, on behalf of the government, which is responsible for the welfare of every citizen of the country.
During the discussion in committee we shall have the opportunity to look carefully into every section of this bill and to move whatever amendments we feel are required. For the time being, so far as I am concerned, I do not intend to make other remarks. I shall have the opportunity to come back to this in due course.


Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: There is no doubt that monetary policy is an integral part of any Government's economic policy as a whole. Monetary policy, fiscal policy and debt policy are interdependent and must be operated in a fully integrated fashion if they are to function effectively. So the part of this bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act which interests me most and about which I should like to say a few words today is that relating to the proposed new section 14 which replaces the old section and which the explanatory footnote tells us "defines the relationship between the Government and the Bank with regard to monetary policy". This is particularly important because of the close relationship there is between fiscal policy, which is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Government of the day, and monetary policy.
There are two elements in this newly defined relationship. One might call the first a consultative one. The Minister and the Governor are now required to consult on monetary policy and its relation to general economic policy. The second element provides a procedure whereby the Government may issue a directive to the Bank of Canada regarding the monetary policy it is to follow.
The first of these elements, the consultative one, simply spells out what ordinarily takes place. Indeed, for many years it was a convention that there should be this kind of consultation, although I suspect the consultation which did go on took place between the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Governor of the bank, rather than between the Minister of Finance and the Governor. Nevertheless there was for many years a close relationship established by convention to deal with monetary policy, and its relation to other aspects of Government policy. Unfortunately, this convention was flouted by the second Governor of the Bank of Canada, or that seems to have been the case, and what this section is

May 14. 1965
Bank of Canada Act
doing is to restore it, explicitly stating that such consultation on monetary policy should take place. I think it is a good idea that it should be set out in writing as it is.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The second part o f the new section 14, requiring the Government to issue a directive should it feel that the monetary policy being fallowed by the Bank is not in keeping with over-all Government policy, is not a novelty except in this country. Most of the bank acts in most countries with a system comparable to our own have had such a government directive section in them for many years. I am thinking of the acts in the United Kingdom, Australia, Holland, and so on. The purpose, as the Minister of Finance said last evening, as reported at page 1280 of Hansard, is to ensure that "the Government can never shirk its ultimate responsibility for the monetary policy which is followed any more than it can for any field of national policy".
The Minister of Finance was no doubt thinking of earlier occasions when the Minister of the day did seem to shirk his responsibility. Even as far back as 1941 the Minister of Finance of that day, a very highly regarded Minister indeed, Mr. Ilsley, asserted at pages 3376 and 3377 of Hansard, when answering a question in the House extemporaneously, that the Government had no control over the policies of the Central Bank, although Mr. Ilsley did reverse his stand a few days later by saying:
The point which I would like to emphasize is that the responsibility with which the Governor and Board have been charged by Parliament does not in any way relieve the Government of responsibility for the monetary policy being pursued by the Bank, nor in any way militate against public control of monetary policy.
That is to be found at page 3936 of Hansard for 1941. Mr. Abbott, the next Minister of Finance, concluded some remarks on the relations between the Bank and the Government by saying in 1951, as reported at page 4393 of Hansard:
The Government, of course, if it were not satisfied with the action taken by the Governor and the directors of the Bank of Canada, would have to change the management of the Bank.
And a little later on Mr. Abbott said:
So that I suppose it is fair to assume that the ultimate responsibility must fall upon the Government.
That is not exactly the strongest statement, certainly not as strong as was stated by the Minister of Finance last night. However, I think one can say that neither Mr. Ilsley nor Mr. Abbott shirked their respon-

sibility. By 1956, however, the Minister of Finance at that time, Mr. Harris, began to disclaim any responsibility for the restrictive actions of the Bank of Canada. On August 10 of that year, in reply to a question concerning the rise in bank rate announced by the Bank of Canada the preceding day, Mr. Harris said, as reported at page 7351 of Hansard, that the regulation of bank rate is a "duty and responsibility . . . imposed upon the bank and not upon the government". He also drew attention to the fact that a few months before he had asserted the principle that the actions of the bank are taken on the sole responsibility of the Governor. Then Mr. Harris went on to say, as reported at page 7352, that the proper interpretation of the Bank of Canada Act was that it was designed "to vest in the officials of the bank independent authority".
Mr. Fleming, then in opposition, took great umbrage to this, stating a day or so later that:
The government cannot shed Its responsibility for full fiscal policy in the broadest sense of the word, and that must include the actions of the Bank of Canada, even when, in a technical sense, those actions are taken by the Governor of the Bank of Canada in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Bank of Canada Act.
But Mr. Fleming's view greatly altered only three years later-it was absolutely transformed-when he became Minister of Finance in the Diefenbaker Government. In 1959 it was he who asserted, at page 3098 of Hansard, that the Bank, not the Government, was responsible for monetary policy. He said:
-the government, as such, does not exercise control over the money supply or over the amount in circulation.
Then a little later he added:
The Government does not exert any sway in the field of monetary policy.
He, I would say, went farthest of all in denying the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. All this, I would like to remind hon. Members, is really a far cry from the remarks of Mr. Dunning, the Minister of Finance at the time of the debate over the nationalization of the Bank of Canada, although we sometimes think that this evasion of responsibility was something that had been very prominent at the time the Bank was created, and particularly at the time it was nationalized. Mr. Dunning, however, said in 1936, at page 3260 of Hansard, in the debate on the nationalization of the Bank:
The matter of public ownership is in my opinion much less important than that of Government
May 14, 1965

control. If we study the constitution of central banks from this aspect, we shall find ample precedent for the attempt which we are making to give the Government adequate control over the Bank of Canada.
I would argue, therefore, that what we are doing, or attempting to do, in this new section 14 is really to restore the kind of philosophy that was expressed by the Minister of Finance at that time, Mr. Dunning, and adhered to, to a substantial extent, by Mr. Ilsley and Mr. Abbott. We are trying to get to a situation where there will not be such a close relationship between the expressed connection of the Government of the day with the Bank on the one hand and the Bank's popularity rating on the other; because what really has happened, of course, is that since about mid-1955, since the Bank began to pursue a so-called tight money policy, the Government has been seeing that accepting full responsibility for monetary policy might incur political costs.
This, I take it, will no longer be possible. Now, under the new section 14, if someone in opposition asks the Minister his position in relation to bank policy, he will say either he agrees or he does not agree, if he is pressed to do so. If he does not agree, he will not be able to shirk responsibility any longer. He will, in the ultimate case, issue a directive as provided in subsection (2), with which the bank shall comply. Therefore I commend the Government for introducing this amendment which will prevent any further denial of ultimate responsibility on the part of the Minister of the day.
There are, however, one or two things that bother me a little about this proposed set-up, and I would be grateful to know a bit more about these problems. It seems to me that this sort of two-point set-up takes care only of the ideal situation on the one hand and of the extremely bad one on the other, and not really very much in between.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In the ideal situation the first part of the newly-defined relationship would operate; that is to say, there would be regular and harmonious consultation between the Minister or Deputy Minister of Finance on the one hand, and the Governor and other officials of the Bank of Canada on the other hand-the situation we have had during the past two or three years. In the extremely bad situation, when the first element of consultation has broken down entirely, the second part of the newly defined relationship would operate; that is to say, a directive would be issued,
Bank of Canada Act
and if the Governor of the bank did not like it he would resign.
At least, I assume that that is what would take place, although I am not at all sure that if this directive power had been in the Act at the time of the Coyne crisis it could in fact have been used, because it seems to me that the disagreement then was not really on monetary policy. Certainly it was not confined to monetary policy. As a matter of fact, the fiscal policy of the Government was almost as restrictive as the monetary policy of the bank. For example, tax rates were still anti-inflationary and opinion on foreign exchange rates of the Department of Finance and the bank was practically identical. It seems to me that the disagreement between Mr. Coyne and the Government was not really on monetary policy primarily, but rather on the views of the Governor of that time on general economic policies; indeed, on political philosophy as well. Since the directive must be limited to "a written directive concerning monetary policy", I am not at all sure that it could have been used at that time.
However, in a way perhaps it is beside the point that I am making, which is that it seems to me only in the extremely bad, almost crisis situation would subsection (2) in fact take effect and a directive be issued. What I am a little worried about is what you might call the in-between situation, when you have fairly adequate consultation and a fair degree of harmony no doubt, but the Bank feels that certain policies should in fact be pursued about which the Minister and the Government are not entirely happy. In fact, the latter would like to see some variations of the policy, and there is a situation where, in the course of consultation and discussion, the two parties have not been able to reach agreement. But there is not a situation of crisis proportions. In such a situation as that one really cannot-at least I cannot-visualize the Minister issuing a directive saying, for example, to take one instance, that the money supply should be increased by (j per cent in the following six months. For one thing I think the Government would be reluctant to do this publicly- and of course this has to be public, as subsection (3) points out-because it would appear to be an acknowledgement of the existence of a crisis.
For another thing, I would be doubtful if the Governor of the Bank of Canada would, so to speak, take this lying down. I think it would constitute a rebuff. This type of direc-

May 14, 1965
Bank of Canada Act
tive would, I think, constitute a rebuff of his judgment. In effect, he would have been publicly told off. I think there would be the possibility that this would be difficult for him to take if a directive were used in this kind of in-between situation, of the type I have just suggested.
I think the only directive which might be used, which from the point of view both of the Government and of the Governor would really be acceptable to them both, would be in general terms. For example, it would direct that the Bank follow a policy of monetary expansion. But as I read subsection (2), such a directive is not possible because a directive has to be "in specific terms and applicable for a specified period". Nor do I think such a general directive would be very effective anyway. So it seems to me that, in fact, under this new clause a directive would probably never be used. Indeed it has never been used in those countries which have had it in their banking acts for years. And we would still be faced, to some extent at any rate, with this kind of in-between situation when in fact it might be, not as difficult as now, but somewhat difficult for a Minister of Finance to take responsibility for a particular policy he did not like.
I wonder too, whether his position in this House might not be a little difficult if someone said to him: "Well, do you in fact agree with what the Bank is doing? If you don't, why don't you issue a directive?" I do not want to raise all kinds of false alarms, but this sort of thing might happen. Although the new section will certainly prevent any blatant shirking of responsibility, such as we had with Mr. Fleming for example, it will not necessarily provide-


Mr. Grafftey:: Is this gospel truth or your opinion?


Pauline Jewett: What a silly interjection. It will not necessarily-


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. lady made a partisan remark in an otherwise fairly reasonable speech.


Pauline Jewett: It seems to me that it will put the Minister of Finance and the Governor in a somewhat difficult situation, where the first part of the new section on consultation, and so on, has not worked out perfectly, where there is some disharmony or disagreement, but certainly not of the proportions which one would say were crisis proportions.
To be quite frank, what I should like to see is a situation where we not only put the Minister of Finance in the position where

he cannot shirk responsibility-and I think we have done that-but that we also have a more clear assumption of his responsibility for monetary policy. I realize this is controversial, but the more I think about it- and I confess that I look at it more as a person interested in the structure of responsible Government and the integration of policy than from any other point of view-it seems to me that monetary policy should be not only within the ultimate responsibility of the Minister but within the somewhat more immediate responsibility of the Minister of Finance and the Government of the day.
Therefore I would hope that at some time we in this country will be able to come to a position where will agree that the Minister of Finance should be on top of the situation in a more positive way, where he does not have to wait to issue a directive, which I think is pretty unlikely ever to happen. Nor, by the way, do I think that even the threat of a directive will be of much effect. In Holland there is this directive system which is never used, and even the threat of its existence does not apparently matter because they have one of the most independent central banks of any democracy. So, as I say, I should like to see a somewhat more positive approach and a less negative one, in which the Government takes responsibility in a positive way for the monetary policy of the country, and where the Governor of the Bank is directly responsible to the Minister of Finance, and only through him to Parliament.
I would say that there would really be no point in having a board of directors. I am not at all convinced that it is a very meaningful board anyway. I would hope to see a direct relationship between the Governor and the Minister of Finance, and through the Minister to Parliament.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
It seems to me that this is the direction in which other countries are moving. For example, in the United Kingdom it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who announces a change in the bank rate, not the bank. Of course, bank rate may not be particularly significant, but it was the cause of our crisis in 1956. In the United Kingdom the Chancellor of the Exchequer also announces a great many other monetary policies in the House of Commons. Even in the United States, which of course has a very different banking system and governmental system from ours, the new amendments that are now proceeding through the Patman Committee of the House of Rep-
May 14. 1965

resentatives seem to make the federal reserve system virtually a branch of the treasury. For example, the Secretary of the Treasury is to be the only continuing officer of the board.
If there were time one could give other illustrations in other countries of the trend that seems to be taking place. The trend does suggest that there is a general mood we have not quite caught up with in this country. In fact it has not really developed fully enough in any other country to have been even closely examined and studied, but there is this trend toward a situation where the Governor of the Bank will be responsible directly to the Minister in charge of the broad aspects of economic policy.
There would also be side advantages in this development taking place. I think it would certainly help to increase public knowledge and information in an extremely difficult field if we have this direct responsibility of the Minister for monetary as for all other aspects of economic policy. We now have the annual reports of the Bank of Canada, but really it is very difficult to tell from them what the thinking is behind policy. If we were to have policy announced and discussed more frequently in the House there would be greater opportunities for us to get at the thinking behind it.
I am not suggesting that all crown corporations be directly responsible to ministers. Indeed, for a corporation such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation this is certainly not the answer at all, for it above all others must have independence. However, more than any other branch of Government, whether it be a department, crown corporation, board or commission, the Bank of Canada is involved in the initiation, formulation and implementation of public policy. Its functions really are functions of high economic policy and must therefore be integrated closely with other aspects of economic policy.
The present bill is certainly helpful. I can certainly see that it will avoid what must have been a number of crises in the past. My hope is that it is a step on the way to what will be a positive assumption of responsibility on the part of the Government for this very important aspect of our total economic policy.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on Bill No. C-101 will be rather brief as we shall have several other 22620-85
Bank of Canada Act
opportunities, especially in committee, of questioning certain authorities in the field of banking. However, it seems worthy of notice that the main purpose of this piece of legislation is to amend certain parts of the Bank of Canada Act.
In the past we were often ridiculed when we stated that the Bank of Canada was in need of reform. We have been talking about Canada's monetary policy for a long while now.
The Liberals themselves bragged about the changes they brought to the monetary policy, after the war, when they had twelve-sided 5 cent pieces struck instead of the round ones which were coined before the war. In addition, brass 5 cent pieces were issued during the war. For the Liberals, that was a reform of the monetary policy. But to us, the monetary policy is something much more important than that because it is the very basis of the Canadian economic system, and that is why we consider it so important.
The changes made by the Liberals in our monetary policy in the past-especially the twelve-sided 5 cent pieces replacing the round ones-remind me of the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) which can be found on page 1282 of Hansard. He said:
A related amendment is proposed in respect of notes of the Bank of Canada to remove the description "payable to bearer on demand". Since the notes are themselves legal tender and have never in fact been convertible into gold, the present wording is unnecessary and in some quarters liable to misinterpretation.
As a matter of fact, that designation has no significance. We have been repeating it for over 30 years, but the Minister of Finance has only come to realize that in 1965. So, we do not lose all hope, but we know that before the Minister of Finance can understand all the suggestions we have to make concerning the monetary policy of the country, it will take a few more years.
The first major amendment in this bill is the one which establishes where the authority lies as far as Canadian monetary policy is concerned. The last three ministers of finance washed their hands of the whole thing on the numerous occasions when they were asked questions in this house on the matter. We have the official record to prove that they had no control over Canada's monetary policy, which depended exclusively on the governor of the Bank of Canada.
Today we have before us a bill under which-and this is indicated more specifically in section 14-the Minister of Finance will

May 14, 1965
Bank of Canada Act
have the authority in theory-and I emphasize in theory-in matters of monetary policy, because in a country, parliament must be solely responsible for monetary policy. It is a sovereign power; and no individual, no private institution, no chartered bank has the right to control, direct or restrict the monetary policy of a country.
The control and circulation of currency in a country is a sovereign right which must belong to a sovereign institution. In this case, the Canadian parliament is represented by the Minister of Finance. But it is not sufficient to establish an authority respecting the monetary policy. This authority-which is parliament, the government-must tell us what it is all about, it wishes in order to establish a definite, clear, realistic and scientific monetary policy, because the financial system of a country should not be dealt with in a lighthanded way and left just to anyone. The monetary policy of a country must first of all be based on scientific principles. We are told that the minister wishes to establish that authority in the area of Canadian monetary policy, but we are not told what that policy will be.
The Minister of Finance cannot tell us, today or tomorrow, what monetary policy will be followed by the government, the authority. He does not know, and he would be embarrassed to state it, because further, in section 9, paragraph (a), page 5, though section 14 states that the Minister of Finance shall be the authority in this matter, authorization is granted private institutions to still control what they were controlling yesterday. Our Canadian monetary policy, as intended in paragraph 14, is an authority as regards monetary policy. Section 9, paragraph (a), page 5, grants chartered banks the power to control a very large part of our Canadian monetary system.
I have before me brochure No. 1 of the economic development board-an economic document which is used by our chartered banks. On page 4 of that publication the question is asked: "What is a banking system?", and one can read this:
But the Bank of Canada does not represent the whole banking system. The part it is playing is justified only to the extent that the banks proper are inserted between it and the public at large-
Which banks control the scrip money, namely the money created by the chartered banks, in the form of bookkeeping entries.
It is always with respect to scrip money or credit that we say the Canadian parliament

gives private institutions a discretionary power in this field.
On page 5, paragraph (a), section 9, as regards this discretionary power, full authority in the monetary field is given to the chartered banks which, with a reserve or a cash balance or a deposit of $6, will be able to lend $94. Therefore, it means that with less money, the banks will have more power and that this bill, while establishing an authority in Canada, gives other private institutions a discretionary power. This bill will help financiers in Canada because they will be able to lend more with less money. They will have more power with less money. With less cash on hand, they will make even more loans.
It is often said that money gives power. Well, the banks, under this bill, with less money, will have even more power.
And here, I am referring to page 1281 of the speech made by the Minister of Finance last night when he introduced three necessary amendments to the Bank of Canada Act and to the Banks Act. As can be seen on page 1281, in the second column, he stated:
The effect of these proposals would be to strengthen the Instruments of monetary policy available to the Bank of Canada without adversely affecting the position of the chartered banks as compared with that other financial institutions.
It is clear that this amendment will not harm the chartered banks because it will strengthen their position. Surely, you cannot harm the banks by providing that they can lend more money with $1 less, or with 1 per cent less, $1 less in cash, because this amendment will strengthen the position of private enterprise, of banks in Canada.
The proposed stand-by power would provide a means of impounding or releasing chartered bank liquidity-
The minister must have made an error when he said that the proposed stand-by power would provide a means of impounding or releasing-I think there is a contradiction here because this will not impound, it will do only one thing, that is release even more credit in the hands of private institutions called chartered banks. I have here an article by Mr. J. T. Bryden, a former director of the Bank of Canada and now vice president and general manager of the North America Life Assurance Company. Mr. Bryden was the chief spokesman for the Canadian association of life insurance company executives, at the hearings of the commission which began in Ottawa Monday. He stated:
May 14, 1965

The association agrees with the statement made by Mr. Louis Rasminsky when he became governor of the Bank, after Mr. Coyne's resignation, and in which he pointed out that the Bank should exercise a daily control over monetary operations, but that the government, on the other hand, should have the final say in the decisions to be taken.
Mr. Bryden noted that the national monetary policy should come under the initiative and authority of the Bank which would have rather extensive powers in that respect. If the government disagreed with the Bank's policy, it could make its views known by giving directives to the Bank.
Indeed, we would very much like to know what written directives the government has given to the Bank of Canada in the past, in any given situation or circumstance.
Mr. Bryden suggested that such directives should be giver in writing and that the Minister of Finance would have to set out in them the decisions to be taken, whether they concern a policy to restrict credit or to ease it, or any other policy.
Furthermore, these directives should be clear and specific, not vague ones.
We could know, from these written directives to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, whether the Minister of Finance really has a logical, practical and scientific monetary policy to suggest for our Canadian financial system.
We have always maintained that the Bank of Canada is playing a very limited role in the scientific control of our financial system. We have also repeated time and again, that chartered banks wield a great power and, with this bill, if it is passed as such, they will be able to create $94 in credit money which will circulate across the country with only $6 deposit or $6 in cash.
In the same booklet published by the economic development board the question is asked in section 5, page 4.
Could it be said then that banks create money?
Yes, that is right, chartered banks create money-
Mr. Speaker, these statements, which we have been making for a number of years are increasingly proving true among the public, and are also confirmed by competent authorities in that field.
In his statement yesterday, the Minister of Finance said, as recorded on page 1281 of the official report:
Another section which it is proposed to remove is that which requires the bank to maintain a reserve of gold and foreign exchange against its note and deposit liabilities and to redeem its notes in gold on demand; it ceased to have any practical meaning after the bank holdings of gold and its holdings of foreign exchange, other than working balances were transferred to the government's exchange fund in 1940.
Bank of Canada Act
Well, Mr. Speaker, I remember quite well that in 1963, during the election campaign, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), appearing on television with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), asserted that we still had gold reserves and that the money in circulation was still guaranteed by reserves of gold.
But the Minister of Finance confirmed in his speech of yesterday what we have been saying since 1940, that Canada has no reserve of gold for our money in circulation. In fact, gold has only served as an international means of exchange, as guarantee for loans to banks, to the international exchange fund.
This means that two years ago, in 1963, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), who is still in the house today, did not know what he was talking about when he asserted that our financial system was still based on gold; the Minister of Finance confirmed last night during his remarks what the hon. member for Lapointe was asserting at the time.
We will therefore be very pleased at the meetings of the committee on banking and commerce to question thoroughly the responsible people, the experts in order to get the government to adopt at last a scientific monetary and financial policy based not on approximations or day to day happenings but on scientific information so that Canada will enjoy the prosperity that should be hers. I feel that to reach that prosperity only one thing remains to be done, that is to reform our financial system to enable our economy to operate well and go forward.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: It is moved by Mr. MacNaught, for Mr. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Nicholson that the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Provided, however, that if the amendment to standing order 65 now on the order paper is adopted, the said bill will be deemed to be referred to the standing committee which will deal with bank matters. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 14, 1965
National Housing Act NATIONAL HOUSING ACT



PROVISION FOR INCREASES IN ADVANCES TO CORPORATION

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the second reading of Bill No. C-104, to amend the National Housing Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the Chair.
On clause 2-Advances out of C.R.F.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: First, Mr. Chairman, I wish to extend my very sincere thanks to the spokesmen for all parties in the House for their expressions of support during the debate on the resolution preceding the bill now before the committee. I appreciate very much their instructive comments, all of which I can assure you will be most carefully considered, when the matter of amendments in principle to the National Housing Act come up for consideration. Today, however, we are simply trying to replenish the exchequer of C.M.H.C. and are not dealing with amendments in principle to the Act itself.
As I have said on several occasions, including the day in June last when amendments to the National Housing Act were being considered, that if the act in its present form does not provide the tools we need to get on with the vital task that is facing us in the field of housing and in the field of urban revitalization, then I would have no hesitation in coming before the House, whenever the occasion arises, with further suggested improvements or revisions.
I was most interested in the contributions to the debate on resolution stage made by several Members, including the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle and the hon. Member for Timmins. I think the latter's remarks on the whole were complimentary of the corporation and of what it is trying to do in this important field. Some of his remarks might be considered as critical of the Minister, but I have practised long enough at the Bar to be able to take a little constructive criticism if it is given in the proper spirit, and I believe this was so in the case of the hon. Member for Timmins. However, I think any submissions he made that might have called for comment or explanation were dealt with yesterday by the hon. Member for Spadina and I do not think it is necessary to trouble the committee with replying to them this afternoon.
I was equally interested in the remarks made yesterday by the hon. Member for
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif).]
Brome-Missisquoi. He is concerned about the implications of the reported intention of the Province of Quebec to move into the housing field. I have already told the House of Commons, in answer to a question put to me some weeks ago, that we had a very successful meeting in Quebec, and when I say we I refer to the meeting attended by the President, Vice President and several other senior executives of C.M.H.C., and myself, when we met with Premier Lesage, Mr. Laporte, and other members of the Quebec cabinet, their senior officials and their advisory committee dealing with the problems of housing.
I feel that it was a good meeting and the atmosphere was encouraging, and because of the meeting of the minds that was apparent on that occasion and a subsequent statement made by the minister concerned, Mr. Laporte, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to the effect that they intended to move into the housing field, I felt encouraged. I was gratified with that statement because the amendments that were approved last year and those that were approved by the former Government have made it possible for all the provinces of Canada to join in this cooperative effort to promote housing and better living conditions.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. We are considering Bill No. C-104 in committee but no copies of it are available either in French or in English. On what are we going to base our remarks?


Mr. Brewin:: Further to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, we do not have any copy either and we are a little lost.


Paul Tardif: I have just noticed that we have no copies of the bill. You are right; if we are to discuss this bill, we should have copies of it.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this point to move that the committee rise and report progress.


Paul Tardif: I agree. I just notice that we do not have a copy of the bill and this may be a method of solving the problem, by rising and reporting progress.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.t


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am surprised that the bills are not here. I thought they had been
May 14, 1965

National Housing Act
given to the proper officials some days ago with which the second reading took place for the distribution at the proper time.	was responsible for the delay.


Paul Tardif: Does
the committee agree that we rise and report progress?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Could not the Minister complete the remarks he was about to make, and then we could go on with the bill after that?


Michael Starr: I agree with that and I am prepared to withdraw my motion.


Paul Tardif: Does the committee give unanimous consent to allowing the Minister to go on with his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lloyd:: I recognize that the committee has agreed that the Minister should proceed and I am in accord with that procedure. I believe this would be a prudent use of our time. But I should like to know what has happened to the machinery. Why has the bill not been produced?


Michael Starr: Typical Liberal mismanagement.


Paul Tardif: There is now a copy of the bill in the hands of the Chair and I understand other copies will be available in a few minutes. If the Minister continues his remarks for a few minutes I presume copies will be available to all hon. Members.


Jean Robert Beaulé: On a point of order, it might be that the new acting chairman is too quick if we have no copies of the bill.


Paul Tardif: I am
sorry, I did not hear what you just said.


Jean Robert Beaulé: It might be because the new acting chairman is too quick that we do not have the bill. We are quite surprised.


Paul Tardif: That
might be.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank hon. Members of the Committee for their co-operation. I will keep talking long enough for the printed bills to get here. If I cannot do that, I will call upon the hon. Member for Lapointe to assist me.


Mr. MacNaughl:: On a point of order, may I say that the bills are on their way here and will be here in a few minutes. The speed


Michael Starr: Well, we have to get on with the business of this country.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As I was saying, the amendments to the National Housing Act in June last were tailored to meet every possible measure of provincial participation. The fact that Quebec has indicated through press reports of Mr. Laporte's recent statement that it intends to make a determined attack on the problems of lower income housing and on urban renewal leaves with me feelings of great satisfaction and anticipation. If it is possible to go ahead in Quebec along the lines indicated by the Ontario Housing Act, or some modified version of that Act, we can make great progress. Ontario has set up a housing corporation capable of moving quickly in any part of the province, city, town or village. A survey is made, and if help is needed from C.M.H.C. to make the survey, such help is provided. If a request is made for a loan, C.M.H.C. provides 90 per cent of the money and the provincial corporation puts up the initial 10 per cent payment needed. Similar action is possible in Quebec, so I am hopeful that as a result of our meeting in Quebec City there will be renewed activity in this field so that we shall be able to do much more with respect to housing in the Province of Quebec.
The hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi was concerned about the need for greater home ownership in the Province of Quebec. He was interested in rural housing as much as in houses in urban communities. I assure the Committee there is nothing in the National Housing Act which says that rural housing shall be excluded from the benefit of its provisions. The same avenues are open to rural as to urban communities.
It might be worth while to draw the attention of the committee to two interesting and successful housing experiments carried on in the Maritime Provinces in Nova Scotia andl Prince Edward Island. They have set up cooperative organizations there to deal with the housing problem in rural areas, in small communities, so that senior citizens and handicapped people will be able to live in homes in or close to the communities where they have lived for most of their lives. The work of these co-operative organizations has been most successful. Indeed it was the success of the Nova Scotia co-operative program, which led to the agreement we entered into

May 14. 1965
National Housing Act recently with the Province of Saskatchewan to provide housing for the Indians and Metis in the northern region of that Province.
The hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi asked for figures showing what has actually been done since the passing of the amendments to the Act last June in the field of urban renewal. The Committee might be interested to know that when this legislation was passed there had been approximately 44 urban renewal studies made in Canada. We have now reached the stage where nearly 60 studies have been made and requests have come in for 16 additional studies. This is largely as a result of the passing of the amendments and the publicity attending it, including the educational program through the symposia which have been held since that time. Ten urban renewal studies have been approved since June last under part V of the Act. In addition to these studies assistance has been approved for the preparation of 10 urban renewal schemes under section 23A and a further two applications for such assistance are under consideration at the present time. Since last June assistance has been approved for the implementation of 4 urban renewal schemes under section 23B of the Act. The total cost of these urban renewal projects is estimated at $15.6 million of which the Federal Government's share would amount to approximately $8 million.
Under the new legislation, assistance had been approved for the construction of 14 public housing projects comprising approximately 607 units under section 35D. The total Federal Government loans on these projects amounts to a little less than $8 million. Furthermore, an additional 2,920 public housing units to be constructed under section 35D have been approved for investigation in 18 municipalities and an additional 2,743 units are also currently being considered in 16 other municipalities. Under the federal-provincial arrangements under section 35A, 1,031 public housing units have been approved since last June in eight municipalities. A further 1,670 public housing units are under investigation in six municipalities.
I am sorry the hon. Member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale is not here. He asked last night what might be done in his riding in the way of senior citizens homes. I regret I did not have the opportunity to reply to him last night because, before he spoke a letter had gone to him saying that when we met in Regina-and when I say "we" I mean officials of the C.M.H.C. and myself-with the repre-

sentatives of the province and the municipalities at the end of this month we shall be glad to sit down and discuss this problem with the hon. Member-he has assured me he will try to be there-and with others who are interested.
Finally, may I again express my appreciation to all those hon. Members who have taken part in this debate during the resolution stage for their constructive contributions. I refer particularly to the hon. Members who have not so far been mentioned-the hon. Member for Fraser Valley, the hon. Member for Roberval, the hon. Member for Quebec South, the hon. Member for Hamilton West, the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni, the hon. Member for Shefford, the hon. Member for Rosedale, the hon. Member for Pictou, the hon. Member for Kootenay West, the hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott, the hon. Member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, the hon. Member for Verdun and the hon. Member for Greenwood.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Nielsen:: You forgot Qu'Appelle.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I mentioned Qu'Appelle earlier; I gave him a top billing. All their suggestions are constructive and worth while. Some of them referred to problems in their own particular ridings, but the reassuring thing is that every single speaker who has participated in the debate so far supports this resolution and the principles underlying this bill. I hope therefore we will be able to pass the bill in Committee and get second reading this afternoon.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Minister when he says that he hopes we can get this bill through today. We had hoped that this could be done, and we wanted to expedite the passage of the bill. But unfortunately copies of the bill are still not with us, and under the circumstances I think the proper thing to do is to move that the Committee now rise and report progress.


Paul Tardif: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave-


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I understood there was some desire that the discussion on clause 2 should take place now. This is the general discussion.


Michael Starr: We haven't had the bill distributed.


John Watson MacNaught: This would be a general discussion on the bill, Mr. Chairman. I have been assured that copies of the bill are on
May 14, 1965

their way here, and I am sure that by the time we have had this general discussion the copies of the bill will have arrived. If they have not arrived then, I would have no objection whatsoever to acceding to the motion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, we would be delighted to assist the Government in passing this legislation this afternoon-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: -despite the groans of the hon. Member for Kootenay East. But we cannot be passing a pig-in-a-poke. We have not the bill before us, we do not know what its provisions are, and surely it is highly unreasonable to expect the House to discuss something when we have not the bill before us. If the Government Members are sufficiently acquainted with the provisions of the bill that they can stand up and speak about it without copies being available-


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, the copies of the bill have just arrived.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ricard:: I just want to mention, Mr. Chairman, that once again we have witnessed what can be done by a strong Opposition that has decided to do its work on nessed what can be done by a strong opposition, we would have been asked to pass a piece of legislation which we had never seen. So I think that our new House Leader is to be congratulated on his good work in this connection.


Paul Tardif: Shall clause 1 carry?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I know that I am a few minutes late, but I should like to point out that it was not the new house leader of the Conservative party who found out, but rather the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule). I say this to keep the record straight.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of Bill No. C-104 in English only and I should like to know whether French copies of this bill are now-


Some hon. Members:: We have them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -available.


Paul Tardif: There are a few copies available.


John Watson MacNaught: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand there are a few
National Housing Act copies of the bill in the French language and that one will be given to the hon. Member.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Could I be included in the few?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, might I take advantage of this break in the proceedings while the French copies are being distributed to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the fact that the bill is substantially the same as the resolution. There is very little difference between the bill and the resolution itself. There are no questions of principle involved; it is just a question of providing the necessary funds that are needed under each of the clauses to finance the work of the Corporation.
On clause 4.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I just want the Minister's assurance in this connection. In the explanatory notes it refers to "public housing projects developed jointly by the Corporation and a Province or any agency thereof". That provision is equally applicable, is it, to the remaining part of Canada above the 60th parallel, in the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is no difficulty there, because in the Northwest Territories, as in the Province of Newfoundland actually, the agency or body can be created by the Federal Government itself. It does not have to be a provincial agency or a municipal agency; it has to be some agency or body that can perform this function, and that can be taken care of in the Territories.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the question I have in mind has already been asked; if not, I should like to ask the minister this.
Would it be possible under this bill for the Quebec builders' association, in co-operation with the authorities of Quebec City, to take part in the program launched by His Eminence Cardinal Maurice Roy to wage war against the slums of Quebec City? Would the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provide financial assistance to this builders' association which really wants to make Quebec City attractive by replacing its slums with decent houses for normal families, considering that this builders' association pledged itself to devote its time and its experience free of charge to help build those houses?
Therefore, I wonder if under these amendments to the act that program could be carried out?

May 14, 1965
National Housing Act


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, such improvements are possible under the Act as amended last June. In fact, part of the time during our meeting in Quebec with the provincial and municipal authorities was taken up in connection with an urban renewal program for the City of Quebec. This matter was discussed, and we stood in the windows of the Provincial Building and discussed what might be done and the efforts that should be made and would be made to preserve wherever possible the beauty of some of the lovely old buildings that are on Parliament Square, I think they call it.
I must say, however, that the initiative in the City of Quebec, as in every other municipality wanting an urban renewal program, rests with the city itself, the municipality itself. If the municipality moves in and has its program endorsed by the Provincial Government, Central Mortgage and Housing may then act; but under the program that was worked out with the ten provinces, the Federal Government should not and cannot very well move into the field of urban revitalization, renewal or housing in a province without the approval and co-operation of the province. Therefore, if the city takes the initiative, the municipality takes the initiative, and the province is behind it, the machinery and the funds, provided they are voted today, will be available for Quebec the same as any other city in Canada.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I hate doing what I am doing now, but I wish to say this to the Minister, who is the last person I would want to offend. This piece of legislation is not half prepared. I say that because looking at the two versions of the bill in front of me I can see many places where some correction has been made. For example in the explanatory notes there has been some crossing out in clauses 2 and 3. The word "Finance" is crossed off in "Minister of Finance". If one compares the French version with the English version he finds discrepancies between clauses 3 and 4. In the English version in clause 3 there is reference to $300 million, and the French version has been corrected in ink. The same under clause 4.
I think that before such an important piece of legislation as this is brought before the House the Minister concerned should first have studied it and looked at it so that there is no possible error. After all, we have to depend on what the Minister says and if we

are going to take the two versions, the French and the English, which are the two official languages, and find differences between the one and the other, without being prejudiced at all it does leave in the minds of those who are here some question marks. I think that before the Minister brings such a piece of legislation as this before the House it should have been looked at and scrutinized so that there is no possibility of any misunderstanding.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I might say that he must have one of the pencilled copies which was corrected as a result of a review I made some weeks ago, when this bill was submitted to me and I went over it in great detail. I am not an expert in translation from English to French but there are no mistakes in the English version. If there are any in his copy then the French version will certainly have to be checked, and that could be done later if second reading is given this afternoon. We would get the proper version into the hands of the hon. Member and we could leave it open for appropriate questions to be raised on third reading if necessary.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on clause 4 I should like to ask the Minister how much of the $50 million already provided for has actually been used in public housing projects. I had thought from the beginning that the amount of public housing of this kind which has gone forward has been considerably less than the need, and I often wondered why the funds available were not taken up to a greater extent in the past than seemed to be the case.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the response from some of the provinces in the field of public housing has not been as encouraging as we would have liked. For instance, in the member's own province there has not been the demand for assistance under the public housing provisions of the National Housing Act that we would have liked to see. On the other hand, great use has been made of the Act in the Province of Ontario. On a per capita basis there have been more houses built in Ontario under the public housing provisions than in any other province although British Columbia and Saskatchewan can also take some real credit.
I would have been concerned with asking for an additional $100 million under this particular provision had it not been for the great activity that has been shown in certain of the provinces, more particularly Ontario following the establishment of the
May 14, 1965

Ontario Housing Corporation. We are getting requests in every month for hundreds of houses. They have an ambitious program which involves the building of tens of thousands of houses in the years directly ahead which I can assure my hon. friend will take us over the $100 million mark. I have not got the exact figures on this here today and if I had known the bill was coming on so early today, I would have had the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing here to supply them. However, I undertake to give the hon. Member and also any other interested hon. Members the exact figures as to what has been done to date in each of the different provinces, and the expectation of our needs for the next 24 months.
I might say that the $150 million, which involves an increase of $100 million, is estimated to take care of the requirements for roughly two or three years instead of 12 months.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, as I understood it from the Minister's opening remarks this bill seems to be strictly referable to the amount of money available under mortgages, and that sort of thing. Perhaps the Minister was suggesting that the National Housing Act might be further amended at some other time. However, if that is not so, I do want to draw to the Minister's attention the great need for housing in the rural areas of Canada.
In this regard, to cover those under ARDA and also Indians who do not own their own property, the National Housing Act would have to be changed considerably in principle, but I do stress there is a very pressing need. I understand from some of the social workers in rural areas that we actually need one million new homes in Canada between now and roughly 1975. The National Housing Act has been very successful in providing better accommodation for our people, and I am wondering whether the Minister would take into serious consideration broadening the act so as to help our native people and also those in rural areas, particularly areas in need of ARDA.
At the same time I think the interest rate might bear some looking at. A lot of these people would make the investment of improving their homes if the crushing interest rate on mortgages were not so high. This is done in the case of farm improvement, and I cannot think of any branch of farm improvement more important than giving the family and the housewife indoor plumbing and the kind of improvements the Minister of Agriculture is so fond of bringing to our attention.
National Housing Act


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. Member may I say that I believe the Act is sufficiently flexible to take care of houses in rural areas. Unfortunately there is no provision for rural renewal. That is a form of ARDA help rather than urban renewal. But I can say that the National Housing Act is being applied in several rural areas in Canada. I have already referred to the successful experiments in co-operative housing in the rural areas of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. We are now extending this co-operative effort on an experimental basis within the framework of the present act, to Indians not living on reserves and to Metis in Northern Saskatchewan, and if it is successful we are committed to move into the other provinces of Alberta and Manitoba, the Peace River country, British Columbia, and also probably Quebec and Ontario.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Another experimental program under study now, which I think will be implemented, is for the movement of the coal miners in British Columbia from the towns of Michel and Natal and combining the populations of these two towns in a different location. There is a progressive move in that direction. That study is under way and we have appropriated the money for it. Similar work is being undertaken in the rural areas of Newfoundland for the movement of fishermen from isolated communities of three or four shacks into little towns where they will have schools, hospitals and other such facilities. I can assure the hon. gentleman that if the mechanism does not exist under the present act or under amendments to ARDA, then further measures will be introduced to take care of the situation to which he refers.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before the clause carries I want to support what the hon. Member for Athabasca said with regard to the Indians. In his capacity as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the Minister will recall that about two months ago there was a march from the Hay Lakes area down to Edmonton. It so happens that last fall I flew into this area and spent a day and a half on this particular reserve. I saw the efforts which were being made at that late date in the fall by the Indians of the bands that inhabit that reservation to move from one part of the reserve to another in order to be closer to the school and other facilities, and to build homes for themselves. To anyone who knew the north country it was quite apparent there

May 14. 1965
National Housing Act
were going to be a great number of cases of hardship.
There were a few houses under the program which the Minister knows is in existence but, as the hon. Member for Athabasca pointed out, there has always been the difficulty that because Indians do not hold title to land but have certificates of occupation only it is impossible for them to secure the benefits which this legislation makes available to other people in Canada. We dealt with this matter in the Joint Committee on Indian Affairs which sat for two years or more. In addition to the funds which are available to the Indians under the Minister's department, I would ask the Minister and his officials to give some consideration to devising some means whereby the security of the band as a whole could be taken care of, so that an accelerated building program could go on for those Indians who see fit to exercise their right to remain on the reserve, in cases where there is hope there will be some form of economic activity generated that will enable them to do so, and to build modest homes with facilities which will at least permit them to live the kind of life that other people in Canada are living.
I think this is a very serious problem. I have visited these reserves in northern Canada over a great many years and I have seen what has happened. I see homes being built there now but the gap that exists is considerable. I know there is a problem and I would ask the Minister to give this matter some consideration.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion. I can assure him that not only will it receive serious consideration but that it is receiving serious consideration. Not too long ago I had a discussion along these lines with the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle and I brought in the Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs for the discussion to see whether, in order to overcome what is a social need more than anything else, although with an important economic element, something might not be done either within the machinery of the National Housing Act or the Indian Act or some other legislation to correct this unfortunate situation. The matter is receiving serious consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


John Watson MacNaught: By leave, now.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the assurance that I gave the hon. Member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and other Members of the House I would suggest that third reading should stand so that our French speaking colleagues in the House will have the French version of the bill in its final form before we give the final blessing of this House to this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Next sitting of the House.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mc-Ilraith (for the Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. C-98, to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at five o'clock, on Wednesday May 12, I was pointing out the unpopularity of the Senate among the public. To prove my point, I produced statements from people whose words carry weight in the field of constitutional law and who expressed their opinion on the Canadian Senate as we know it today.
I should now like to draw the attention of the house to a statement made by Mr. Jean-Charles Bonenfant, the legislative assembly librarian, and published in L 'Action Catholique on October 31, 1964. Last night, before the convention on judicial affairs he stated that, in his opinion, the Senate should be abolished; if not, let it be elected by the people. Mr. Bonenfant found unthinkable that senators, appointed for life, were not responsible to the people. Mr. Bonenfant's comments were also aimed at the legislative council.
I could quote many other authorities who voiced their opinions publicly in respect of this institution which has been in existence for too long without undergoing any reform.
I also have here La Patrie of April 16, 1964; Mr. Jean Desraspes asked four different personalities what they thought of the Senate, and La Patrie published the statement of Mr. Desraspes and of those four highly qualified persons:
May 14, 1965

As a stubborn parasite, this venerable institution digs itself into our not less venerable democracy, as a tapeworm digs itself into man.
The Senate is not unlike a cat: it has seven lives and a thousand wiles. Not only does it survive the attacks of its opponents, but it provokes them.
It wants to sleep, of course, but it cannot sleep all the time.
That is why the Senate comes to life once in a while, thus astonishing everybody, including most senators.
To sleep is to die a little.
The Senate last woke up some fifteen days ago. This awakening did not last long.. .long enough for a sign, a groan, and then back to sleep. None the less, that sign, that groan was enough to indicate its presence. Everyone was panic-stricken. (Afterwards, one wonders why). What would happen, should it awaken for good?
And then the members of the house gang up to hit it again, so as to render it unconscious for another six months at least.
Quickly, they gathered in caucus, they talked, discussed and finally appointed a fearless knight who introduced a notice of motion requesting the abolition of the venerable institution.
That is what happened some fifteen days ago, and it is what always happens.
When the groaning and the panic subside, silence falls as by magic, upon the upper chamber.
Let Sleeping Dogs Lie
While waiting for our Methuselahs to wake up, I thought it would be a good thing to ask four prominent people what they thought of them.
I asked two questions: Should the Senate be abolished? If so, what should be done with our old politicians?
Father Gerard Dion: "When I was young, I was really bent on abolishing the Senate. Today, I value the Senate like the apple of my eye. To -abolish the Senate would be to court immediate disaster.
"We absolutely need some sort of body to put .away embarrassing politicians. If the Senate did not exist, we would have to create it.
"You see, if a troublesome politician is a lawyer, you only have to appoint him a judge to set 'him aside. But if he is not even a lawyer, what [DOT]can you do?
"In view of the fact that we do not yet have a political civil service-
"And what is a senator worth? Fifteen thousand [DOT]dollars per year? That is nothing, nothing at all, compared to all the blunders they could make if they were left in active politics."
A Stupid Situation
After the humoristic performance of Father Dion, I interviewed a historian:
Professor Michel Brunet: "If we absolutely want to keep the Senate, let that body be elected and let it be given the representation provided in the constitution-Also each province should be responsible for electing its own senators. It goes without saying that such senators would be elected for definite terms and not for life.
"We are the ones who place senators in an absurd situation and then call them "mischievous old men". Those senators know too well that they are not elected by the people and that, consequently, they would be ill-advised to oppose . legislation passed by the government.

Retirement Age for Senators
"If we want to put the Senate to work, we could entrust them with research work, but we would have to give them a certain budget to this effect-"
Mrs. Judith Jasmin considers the Senate as an elegant means of getting rid of troublesome people, but this is much too costly.
"Since they are not elected by the people to begin with, any possibility of direct action on government decisions must be taken away from them.
"If the abolition of the Senate is considered, we should replace it by something else. Therefore, I suggest some sort of club which could be called "the Wise men's club". And as soon as a politician would get in the way, he would have to submit his resignation and would then be appointed for life to that club. By way of compensation, we could give him of course a little piece of ribbon showing that he is truly a member of that wise society. It would be, in short, our own legion of honour.
"Napoleon knew what he was doing when he instituted the legion of honour, you know.
"Our own legion of honour would give us a little Latin air that would be quite nice indeed."
Here is another statement by Mr. Roger Lemelin:
"The Senate is an institution left over from the monarchy. It must be remembered that, at the Quebec conference, before the confederative pact, the discussions about the Senate were much more important than those about representation.
"Since the make-up of our parliamentary institutions is British, it is perfectly logical to keep the Senate-even if it is left over from the monarchy.
"There might be a way to abolish life appointments and to elect senators for five or ten years. On the other hand, Senators need not be former politicians. They could come from various fields of endeavour".
Those are statements from various prominent people expressing their opinion about the other place or the constitution and the present situation.
I have here Beauchesne's Parliamentary Practice, fourth edition, and section 31 reads as follows:
The place of a senator shall become vacant in any of the following cases:
(1) If for two consecutive sessions of the Parliament, he fails to give his attendance in the Senate:
If I quoted this rule of Beauchesne to which members of the other place are subject, it is in order to prove, as we have often been told, that some senators almost never come, but are made to attend sittings at every other session. Some of them who are old must be brought in wheel-chairs so as to be still considered as Senators for a couple of years.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the reform must logically go further than what is provided for in this bill for the retirement of senators at the age of 75.
May 14, 1965

Retirement Age for Senators
There are surely Liberal members here who expect to be appointed to the Senate one day. One of them would be the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), but there are several others who would also have suggestions to make under our democratic system, suggestions which would be more appropriate than the solution proposed in this bill, the retirement of senators at the age of 75.
If that is what the Liberals meant when they promised to amend the legislation concerning the Senate, it is very little as compared with what could be done to improve the Senate and the Canadian parliamentary system.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate but, after hearing what the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) and others have said about the usefulness of the Senate, I just have to make a few comments.
In the course of his remarks, the hon. member referred to certain persons-Father Dion, Miss Jasmin and Mr. Lemelin-who strongly criticized the retention of the Senate. But, if we were to offer a seat in the upper chamber to those three persons mentioned by the hon. member, I am quite sure none of them would refuse. There is no doubt that our senators are doing very useful work, but, from the outside and with no chance whatever of being appointed Senator, it is very easy to judge most severely the members of the other place.
I believe that the senators now sitting in the red chamber certainly deserve the respect of the Canadian people. They have a wide experience in their respective field of activity, whether legal, business or any other, where they worked during their active life.
I think that certain amendments, certain improvements could be brought about so that our senators could take a more active part in the preparation of certain studies concerning the development of our legislation.
But I do not think that we should give too much importance to certain people whose remarks as based on jealousy or who are envious of the lot of those who are more deserving than they are. I am not surprised to hear members of the splinter parties make all sorts of remarks not worthy of the attention of the house or of the people. In fact, I believe that any of the splinter parties, sitting over there to your left, will have the opportunity to appoint members to the upper house, because, of course, only the Liberal

or Conservative parties have been and will be the parties called upon to appoint senators.
When we hear members of the splinter parties try to make us believe that they have all the answers to the imperfections and flaws which may prevail in the House of Commons and in the Senate, we should laugh at these remarks instead of paying attention to them.
Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to say that, in my opinion, thanks to some changes and to the process which we have followed so far, those who sit in the august chamber, that is the Senate, can continue to render excellent services to the people. Moreover, if the splinter parties cannot, because of their meagre influence, have anything to say concerning the appointment of those who will sit in the Senate, they must put up with it, and we should not deprive the people of the services of those eminent citizens who, in their respective spheres, have become famous and rendered very great services to their fellow citizens.
I suggest that the government should proceed as intended to improve the membership of the Senate, and I advise it not to listen too carefully to the whining we hear at the far left of this house.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me to listen to the greed of the hon. Members in the Tory and Liberal Parties coming out so much in the open on a matter such as this, because it is quite obvious that the sole reason given for having an attitude toward this bill different from that which we have has been expressed in terms that we in the N.D.P., never having been the Government of Canada, therefore do not appreciate the feeling that exists in appointing people to the Senate, and that this is the only reason for our attitude.
The other side of the coin has just been expressed by the hon. Member for St. Hya-cinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), and it is that his party and the Liberals, one of which is in office and the other of which has been in office, operate the Senate on the basis of greed, avarice and pay-offs for political activities. There is no other interpretation can be placed upon it.
There is a procedure in our parliamentary activity which we inherit from the British parliamentary system, and which we have developed, known as a six months hoist, and an amendment to that end, while it is largely traditional and ritualistic, and really has no meaning in itself, nevertheless does provide
May 14. 1965

the opportunity to a group to say we are unalterably opposed to a particular piece of legislation we want to see defeated and killed. Consequently the provision is open to anyone to move a motion that the bill be read not today but six months hence. Even though, as I have said, this is a traditional approach and more ritualistic than anything, none the less in order to indicate our opposition to the bill before us I hope at the conclusion of my remarks to move such a motion, to give the bill a six months hoist, as common parlance goes or, in other words, to kill the bill if the motion passes.
Naturally, if the motion passes I would presume the Government would be defeated and we might very well have an election as a result thereof. This, I am sure, would please the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and others in the Cabinet who really do not care what the reason is, so long as they can find some excuse, and we hope to provide that in this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. Member that he should confine his remarks to the principle of the bill under consideration, which is an Act to make provision for Retirement of Members of the Senate.


Frank Howard: I would be glad to comply with the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, except I think the bill has no principle, and neither have its sponsors when they ask this Parliament to take this step to reform an institution which is beyond reform.
The only principle which might by some stretch of the imagination be contained in it is the one that parliamentarians become useless upon attaining the age of 75, useless that is so far as their activities as parliamentarians are concerned. And while it is true the proposal before us relates only to the Senate, none the less if this is the implication behind it, then I submit the same provision should be introduced in this House. So far as the House of Commons is concerned we should make a determination that all Members in Parliament, whether in the Senate or over here, are not eligible to sit as parliamentarians once they attain the age of 75.
One of the other unprincipled parts of the bill is that it will provide for a donation, or a gift, or a grant, or a present to everyone who is now in the Senate, in an amount of $8,000 per year, without their having contributed one single solitary penny toward that gift, in other words a free pension for which an individual did nothing, in other words a sort of a bribe to the Senators to
Retirement Age for Senators give passage to this bill. Speaking for myself and the Members in this party I say we are not in favour of such an unprincipled thing, and if that is called a principle of the bill I want to express opposition to it as well.
Liberal and Conservative speakers have said that they are in favour of retention of the Senate, of retaining it as a haven for political friends, of retaining it as a sanctuary for those who have lived out their usefulness in any other way in political life, of retaining it as a place to deposit fund raisers and the like so that they can be paid a salary out of the public treasury while collecting funds for either one of the two old line parties.
In their reason for the support of the Senate as an institution, as opposed to those of us who seek to abolish it, they are, as I said earlier, in effect expressing their greediness, trying to use public funds for what I consider to be a nefarious scheme. It may well be true, human nature being what it is, that the closer an individual gets either to being appointed to the Senate or to the position where he can make appointments to it, the greater will be the change in his attitude about the Senate.
It may well be true that an individual Member of one of the other parties in the House, if he were the Prime Minister, might have a different attitude about the Senate. It may well be true that an individual would succumb to the greedy instinct in him and say, "Oh, I have changed my mind about the Senate. It is a worthy institution because I might be appointed to it." It may well be true that individuals, through human nature, would have this changed attitude as they got older in years and closer to the possibility of appointment to the Senate.
This is what the Liberal and Tory parties are saying; but all we in the N.D.P. are asking you to do is to be altruistic about this, if you can. We are asking you to put aside the enticing offer of a seat in the Senate, of an early retirement at $15,000 a year. We are asking the Members in the Liberal and Tory Parties to forget the past, to forget the disgraceful way in which appointments to the Senate have been made.
We ask you to look to Canada, to work for it, to look sincerely at the idea of abolishing the Senate, give away the thoughts of greed you have, and think altruistically and decently about Canada and the Senate for a change. That is all we are asking those two old line parties to do in this instance.
May 14, 1965

Retirement Aye for Senators [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It may well be we are asking far too much. It may well be it is utterly impossible for the Liberals and the Tories to think in any other way than in terms of political expediency or of manners in which they can use public funds to pay off their friends. If they cannot get away from that thought process they will obviously think in terms of defeating the motion for a six months hoist which I now propose to move seconded by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Mather). In order that it may be on the record, I will read it. It is:
That this bill be not now read the second time but that it be read the second time this day six months hence.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It was
not my intention to participate in this debate for a variety of reasons. The first was that I felt that, with their usual persuasive eloquence, my colleagues had put the views I myself hold, namely that this particular measure did not provide any real degree of reform for the Senate-that it was trifling and inconsequential in nature; in the second place, that any attempt to reform the Senate was largely a waste of time and that a more radical operation was required. The other reason I was reluctant to enter into this debate was my warm feeling of regard and admiration for some of the individual persons who are Senators in the other place and my fear that by expounding my views on this matter I might unintentionally give offence to persons for whom I have a warm regard; indeed I regard them as personal friends.
But this is obviously a measure of importance and perhaps it is my duty to explain why I support the motion which has been made by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and why I oppose this particular bill. The main purpose of this bill is to provide for the retirement of Senators at a particular age. But the discussion here has ranged very widely over the merits of the Senate as an institution, its contribution to our constitutional processes and so on. Obviously this has to be considered-whether the institution is one which can be improved by the retirement of Senators at the age of 75 as required. I was afraid that my own feelings of coolness and indifference to the Senate as an institution rather than as a group of individuals might have something to do with partisan bias; I had become so used to passing resolutions to abolish the Senate that I had come to accept uncritically

the validity of those arguments, and to adopt a warped or biased attitude toward that body.
But my views have been powerfully supported by two authoritative statements by two distinguished Canadians, each of whom would very likely have been appointed to the Senate in different circumstances. I am referring to Mr. Marcel Faribault, who, I read in the paper recently, is being regarded as the white hope of certain circles in the Conservative Party in Quebec-whether a white hope or otherwise he is undoubtedly a distinguished businessman with a record of great public service-and to Mr. Robert M. Fowler the other author of a book called "Ten to One -the Confederation Wager". Mr. Fowler is an outstanding Liberal businessman who has had a most distinguished career. Starting at the Bar at about the same time as I did in Ontario he had a long and successful career both in business and at the Bar. He has great constitutional knowledge, because he was Secretary to the Rowell-Sirois Commission and often appeared in constitutional cases. He has since then served on many royal commissions and is a very remarkable person. These two gentlemen, Mr. Faribault and Mr. Fowler collaberated in writing this book called "The Confederation Wager". I wish to recall to the House the remarks made by Mr. Faribault and Mr. Fowler who, as I say, are highly regarded businessmen from the older parties and whose views could be taken as being highly objective. They have this to say about the Senate-and I read from page 64 of their book:
Measured either by its achievements or its public repute, the Senate has not been an outstandingly successful Canadian institution.
If Members of the Committee appreciate as I do the reserve and the restraint with which these gentlemen naturally express themselves they will recognize that this is a characteristic understatement and that if Mr. Faribault and Mr. Fowler were to decide to express their views more frankly they would probably say much more than that. They confine themselves to saying "it has not been an outstandingly successful Canadian institution." The paragraph goes on:
For years there have been proposals for its re form, ranging from minor proposals for the compulsory retirement of aged Senators to advocacy of outright abolition. It is doubtful if the Senate has ever fulfilled its original purpose of giving a more effective voice to the less populaced regions of the country.
This was one of the reasons for the establishment and continuation of the Senate-
May 14, 19S5
and it gave an effective voice to those regions. The authors go on:
It is often said that the main duty of the Senate is to provide a "sober second thought" for legislation passed by the House of Commons.
I recall an eloquent and highly humorous speech in this House made a day or two ago by one of the hon. Members for Halifax, I think it was, during which he produced this view that the Senate allowed for a sober second thought. But again Messrs. Faribault and Fowler deal with this argument and say there is no conclusive evidence that the thoughts of the Senate have ever been other than sober. They say:
Too often the second thought given by it to legislation has been more descriptive of the length of time taken to consider important measures than to the degree of original and independent thinking applied to them. There have been some occasions when the Senate stood firm against ill-considered and unfair actions hastily taken by the House of Commons. There have been a number of useful investigations conducted by Senate committees into a variety of economic and social problems. But its record of achievement is not an impressive one.
The failure of the Senate to play an effective role in Parliament was caused by a number of factors. One has been the basis of appointment and the life term of Senators.
I call the attention of Members of the House to this, because it has sometimes been said that we in this party have been unduly harsh in our references to methods of appointment to the Senate. Once again I call on these eminent authors and businessmen to support the view we have taken. They go on to say:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
With some notable exceptions, appointments to the Senate have been based on partisan considerations. There has been a desire to reward faithful party servants or to remove from active politics colleagues who had become redundant or embarrassing. Appointments for life to the tranquil atmosphere of the Senate have created a body with an extraordinary capacity for personal survival and a diminishing average level of individual energy.
These words are couched, as I say, in that delightful restraint which one would expect, but they do fully substantiate the criticisms that have been made by my colleagues who have spoken previously on this question of the Senate. Perhaps I could be permitted a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, to speak of my own experience in connection with the Senate. I, too, as a younger man had heard of the function of the Senate as a defender of minorities. Shortly after the finish of World War II in 1945, the then Liberal Government passed a number of
Retirement Age for Senators Orders in Council providing for the deportation of Japanese Canadian citizens, in some cases solely on the ground of their race. This was supposed to be a war measure, although the war had finished at that time.
We appealed to the courts and to the Government, and those of us who were interested in the matter thought that as the Senate was the defender of minorities we should appeal to the Senate for the defence of the right of Japanese Canadians against deportation. So we did apply to the Senate. Some kindly and zealous Senators told us that the most useful thing we could do would be to have the question of these Orders in Council referred to the most active Committee of the Senate, which was their Committee on Banking and Commerce. Indeed the matter was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking and Commerce and we attended and put before them the arguments as to why an Order in Council for the forceful deportation of Japanese Canadians, who had sinned in no way except in regard to having the wrong race, should not be put into effect. We had a very sympathetic hearing, and eventually I was told that the Committee, after one of its most intensive and controversial discussions, had finally voted 11 to 6, if I recall the figures correctly, to uphold and support the Government orders and take no action in respect of the matter. This caused me to lose faith in the Senate's role as a protector of minorities.
I had further experiences, Mr. Speaker. I was told that the Senate was an admirable instrument for the revision of legislation. It happened in the course of my professional carreer that I was assisting one who is now a distinguished, retired Judge, Mr. Justice McRuer, who had been employed by the Government of that day to assist in the revision of the Combines Investigation Act and make it more effective. To the best of my ability I assisted him. I had occasion then to find out what the Senate had done in its sober second thoughts on combines legislation. I discovered that the hon. Members of the Senate had indeed made some amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, but the effect and purpose of each one of those amendments was to make the enforcement of the Act that much more difficult. I found, therefore, that the Senate, in its only legislative contribution of which I had had any knowledge at all, was in fact erecting barriers to the effective carrying out of the law passed by this branch of Parliament, the

1322	COMMONS
Retirement Age for Senators House of Commons, for the purpose of effectively dealing with combines acting against the interests of the consumers. So, Mr. Speaker, all these experiences, plus the study of such erudite and balanced works as those of Messrs. Faribault and Fowler, to which I have just referred, led me to the conclusion which I still hold, I hope with sobriety and restraint, that no useful purpose in our legislative process is performed by the Senate.
If, as my colleague the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) has said, there is need for a convenient place to send distinguished people or those whom the Government deems, in Mr. Fowler's language, to be redundant or embarrassing, and if there are any active, political colleagues who have become redundant or embarrassing, there should be some more effective means of dealing with them than sending them to a legislative chamber which still has co-ordinate jurisdiction with this elected chamber. Therefore with some reluctance, Mr. Speaker, and in spite of my great personal regard, as I said before, for many of those who are in the Senate, as an institution I can see nothing worthwhile that can be said for it. If it is radically unsuited in this modern, democratic age, why continue with the institution? I point out that every province with the exception of Quebec, I believe, has got rid of its second chamber; and Quebec is in the process of getting rid of, I presume, or at least substantially cutting down the authority of its Legislative Council. With this process I have every sympathy. In many other democratic parts of the world it has been found that a second chamber is no longer needed. We have ample officers in this House to carry out revisions. We proceed with the utmost deliberation and caution on almost all occasions-except on Friday afternoons-and I see no reason whatever for thinking it necessary to have an expensive institution, which does not represent the people, with the power of life and death over every piece of legislation that we in this elected House of Commons pass.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and with, as I say, some personal reluctance but a great deal of conviction, that I feel obliged to support the motion made by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). Indeed, I do so for not only the reasons I have stated but also for the very cogent and compelling reasons advanced by my other colleagues.

DEBATES	May 14. 1965


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could put a question to the hon. Member before he resumes his seat. With his usual generosity he expressed his personal admiration for some individual Members of the Senate. His colleague the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said in his remarks that the primary motivation of people interested in the Senate, whether Government Members or Members of the Senate, was that of greed. Would the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) agree with the hon. Member for Skeena in that respect?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Skeena and myself have been colleagues for a good many years. We nearly always agree about important matters; sometimes we disagree about unimportant matters. I must frankly confess that, perhaps because I am a relatively new Member of the House and have not had the experience of my colleague, I am inclined to a rather more naive faith in the motive of the Members of the Senate than apparently he has. It is my personal view that a good many Members of the Senate accept appointment out of a sense of personal duty, out of a sense of personal obligation. It is also my view that many of them do their very best to perform their functions in the Senate with ability and with devotion to their duties. That is my own personal opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: On the other hand, I do not in any way withdraw from the view which I expressed-and I know it is shared by the hon. Member for Skeena-that the partisan nature of the appointment, and so on, and the whole nature of the institution is such that inevitably, unfortunately, the motives of those who are appointed are apt to be mixed and the performance of those who are appointed is apt, despite their devotion, not to be that which one would think to be ideal. For example, if one could be sure that only eminent scientists, historians, shall we say, scholars, distinguished industrialists, and so on, were appointed, then I think one could assume that the quality of performance in the Senate would improve.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
But I do not think it is rational to anticipate, human beings being what they are, that we shall ever have appointments on any substantially different basis from that which Mr. Faribault and Mr. Fowler set out, which is that of purely partisan appointments. I
May 14, 1965

think that this does diminish from the dignity and performance of those who are appointed to the Senate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege relates to when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald), by posing a question, grossly misinterpreted what I said. Perhaps for the sake of clarification I should point out to him that what I said was that it is in this Chamber amongst the members of his own party and the members of the Conservative party that the strongest advocates of the retention of the Senate are basing their advocacy on the basis of greed, because they themselves are perhaps in a closer position in regard to going to the Senate. I did not make reference to whether or not Senators themselves who are in the Senate at the moment were greedy or operated because of any base motives. Perhaps with that clarification the hon. Member will have a much deeper appreciation of what I was getting at and will thereby support the idea which I proposed that the bill be given a six months hoist.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Just on that question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I misinterpreted what the hon. Member said in his remarks I certainly had no intention of doing so. I will see what he said when I read his remarks on Monday, but I will be glad to accept his explanation in the meantime.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have not too much to say, particularly as I observe that other Members of the party of the hon. Member who moved the motion are prepared to speak, thus preserving the life of this unfortunate Government for some period beyond today, giving them a further chance for repentance. In view of the fact that the amendment as moved indicates the desire of the hon. Member who moved it, and presumably his party, that it should act as an expression of their view that the Senate should be abolished, I find myself in the position of being unable to support the amendment which has been proposed.
I am not going to go into the merits of the other place, which has been the subject of a very exhaustive and excellent debate on the part of those who have preceded me. My own personal experience of the Senate, which is limited to serving on various joint committees with hon. Senators, has been that they bring a faculty of deliberation, understanding
Retirement Age for Senators and experience which has been very useful indeed. In addition to these investigative and examining facilities which they have developed through a number of committees which they have established, plus the continuity of service of those in that Chamber, they have the legislative faculties provided them under the constitution.
It may be there are valid criticisms to be made of the procedure of their appointment. I think we recognize that even our own Chamber is not free from criticism, the Government having moved recently to bring in some very substantial changes to our rules. I think that this admission that there is room for improvement does not necessarily mean that at this time we should be prepared to accept the view that the Senate should be completely abolished.
I suggest that there is a reasonable element of virtue in almost any political organization or group. Even my hon. friends sitting to the left in the N.D.P.-even though there may be some who doubt this- given sufficient time in this House and the opportunity to listen to the words of wisdom which fall from those who sit in this part of the Chamber may yet at some time in the future come to a state of grace. I have my doubts, but I give them the benefit of the doubt and I say that it may happen.
I only wish I could say the same of those on the Government side, but I am afraid that in this case it is not at all likely. Even though they are frequently drenched with oratorical fertilizer, I fail to see that this strikes any spark of life in hon. Members sitting opposite. So I draw this exception.
Coming back to the motion and descending from the Government to the Senate, I think that with the changes in appointment that time will bring, and with the more specific role which experience has indicated is essential, there is no reason at all why that august body cannot continue to make very useful and reasonable contributions to the public life of this country. Having in mind that the amendment proposed is one which will kill the bill, its being an indication of the views of the party which has moved it, I feel that I cannot support this amendment.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, looking at the clock I realize that I have not very much opportunity today to present views about which I have given such deep consideration in relation to the whole question of the Senate as an institution, and the application of those views to the motion

May 14. 1965
Indian Affairs
placed before the House by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). During the first years I was in the House, as you yourself, Mr. Speaker, will recall, I listened to the then Official Opposition spokesmen expressing at great length and with considerable eloquence at times what they would do to reform the Senate when they took office. I should point out that this was nearing the end of the period of the 22 years of Liberal administration, which the members of the Official Opposition at that time very well knew in their own hearts might continue for yet another number of years as far as their own chances were concerned. The views they expressed then I waited with considerable interest to see put into action during the four years that I was not a member of this House, and I must say that in the light of what they said then and their attitude now when they are now back in opposition, I find it rather astonishing that they do not, according to the hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), propose to support the motion which is now before us.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, would delay passage of second reading for six months. It is really designed to kill the bill, and I think the fact we have moved it indicates that, in our view, the main bill which we have before us should be treated by the Members of this House with the contempt it deserves, as something which does nothing really effective for those who have in mind some reform of an institution, which many of my colleagues have already suggested is really hopeless to attempt.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Frank Howard: Five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: 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 public bills and private bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to preserve and promote native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, having regard to my limited abilities in the field of research, I think that this is the first and only occasion on which a bill such as this one, second reading of which has just been moved by me,

has been introduced in the House of Commons. As the title of the bill states, it deals with our native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts and seeks to preserve and promote those arts and crafts to the advantage of the native Indian and Eskimo people and to the advantage of Canada itself.
I do not think there is anything that irks an Indian or Eskimo more than to see totem poles, tomahawks, dolls, bead work, quill work and so on appear in stores all across the nation with the words "made in Japan" stamped on these articles. I do not say that in any unkind sense so far as Japan is concerned, but it is a fact that the great bulk of the imitation totem poles, tomahawks and other articles which are basically products of our native Indian and Eskimo cultures are imported from Japan. I have looked in many shops and stores for arts and crafts of this kind and many of these items are cheap and shoddy. They are poor imitations that do nothing but tend to destroy any understanding of the beauty of our native Canadian arts and crafts. Our curio shops and souvenir stores are filled with articles of this type which do nothing more than prostitute the artistic expression of our native Indian and Eskimo people. They are ugly mass-produced copies, and grave distortions of the originals, which do nothing whatever to enhance the art of the native Indian and Eskimo people or to enhance the stature of Canada in the eyes of those visitors who come here from other lands and want to take home with them a souvenir of Canada. When they do so, many times they do not take home a souvenir of something made in Canada but rather something made in another country and imported into Canada which, as I said earlier, is nothing more than a cheap and shoddy imitation of the real thing.
The object of the bill is to preserve and promote native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts by the establishment of a Native Cultural Council of Canada. Sections 2 and 3 of the bill seek to permit the appointment of an 11 member Native Cultural Council of Canada with five members to be chosen from the Indian population of our nation and at least three from the Eskimo population of Canada. I would hope that the remaining three seats on the Council could be filled very easily with people learned in the anthropological field, or in other fields of culture, in such a way that their knowledge would be an adjunct to the knowledge of the native Indian and Eskimo people on the Council.
May 14. 1965

Section 4 of the bill sets out the objects and powers of the Council. May I say at once that the objects set out in section 4 of the bill are based upon the objects of the Canada Council. They have been adapted to apply to native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts, but in substance they are the same as those applying to the Canada Council, which I am sure we all agree is a very worth-while body with laudable objectives. With regard to the objects of the Native Cultural Council I read from the explanatory note:
The objects of the Council will be to preserve and promote the arts and crafts of our Indian and Eskimo people by, without limiting the Council's broad objectives, co-operating with other organizations with similar objectives, by providing grants and scholarships to Indians and Eskimos for research and instruction in the arts and crafts, by making awards for accomplishments in the arts and crafts, by arranging for exhibitions and publications, by transmitting information to other countries about arts and crafts and by exchanging information about arts and crafts with other countries.
The bill further provides for the Native Cultural Council of Canada to co-operate and work with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. I might say that similar authority is also contained within the powers given to the Canada Council.
Under section 5 of the bill it is proposed that the Council have the authority to make bylaws regulating its proceedings and generally for the conduct and management of its activities. I wanted to ensure that the Council would have as great a degree of freedom as possible in managing its own affairs. Therefore the bill is deliberately vague and general and consequently gives to the Council full authority to manage its own affairs, to establish the mechanics by which it will operate and to lay out the details with regard to anything in which it becomes engaged. We want the Council to be free and unfettered in its objectives of preserving and promoting native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts.
In clause 5 as well there is provision for the Council to appoint honorary officers and advisory committees. The reason for this is so that the Council will be able to take advantage of local knowledge among the Indian and Eskimo people about the arts and crafts peculiar to particular groups of these people and which may not be a part of the culture of Indian tribes or Eskimo groups in another part of the country. By way of illustration I point out that I think it would not be correct to ask the people of the Iroquois nation of Indians to advise or make
Indian Affairs
decisions about the totemic art as developed and practised by the Indians of the west coast, because totemic carving and totemic expressions were completely alien to the Iroquois people and they would have no intimate or intricate knowledge of the cultural aspect of totemic carving. So I submit that we must necessarily permit the Council to have advisory committees and to have the authority to appoint honorary officers so that it can draw upon the broad knowledge of all the native Indian and Eskimo people in Canada in the pursuit of the Council's particular goals.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Under Clause 8 provision is made for the Council to acquire money, gifts, property and the like and to expend that, subject to whatever terms are attendant upon the gift or the donation. While I cannot, as a private Member in this House, introduce a bill which would contain a provision for the Government to make grants or contributions to the Native Cultural Council of Canada, I can express the hope that this would be the case. It is certainly my thought, even though I am prohibited by the rules from putting it in this particular bill, that the Government itself would take the initiative and follow up by making grants and donations to the Native Cultural Council of Canada so it could pursue as completely as possible its goals and its objectives.
Clause 9 of the Bill reads:
No person shall import into Canada any thing passing or capable of passing as native Indian art or craft unless the importer has obtained and produces a certificate granted by the Council in respect thereof.
I foresee and hope that the Council would make bylaws setting up some machinery by which this determination would be made. I would foresee if someone wanted to import into Canada something that would be capable of passing as native Canadian Indian or Eskimo art or craft, he would make application to the Council and that the Council would follow this up by examining the article in question or would consult with its various honorary officers or advisers, and then make a determination of whether or not it was permissible to import the article. I would foresee also they might take the initiative in establishing-again I am prevented by the rules from introducing such a provision in the bill-a means of seeking the payment of royalties or the like on such articles as are imported into Canada, and that the money

May 14. 1965
Indian Affairs
so received would go into the treasury of the Council to finance its purposes and objectives as set out in Clause 4.
There is concern, Mr. Speaker, amongst many native and Eskimo people in Canada about imitations of native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts which are made in Canada. We would have to deal with this in a different way from that established in this bill. I think offhand particularly of the plastic or fibreglass imitations of argillite totem poles which are made in North Vancouver and which are sold all across the nation, sometimes with the purveyor of them deliberately advertising them as authentic argillite poles, which they are not. None the less the principle is the same. These are productions which are not the original and authentic carvings of the Haida people. I use that only as an illustration. We are concerned about that aspect of it too. I did not deal with it in this bill because we were informed by the previous Minister of Citizenship and Immigration there was ample legislative provision in existence to take steps to deal with that aspect of it. Hon. Rene Tremblay, when he was Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, wrote on April 20, 1964, a letter to me and the hon. Member for Timiskaming dealing with some aspects of that matter. The letter reads in part as follows:
In order to help the buying public distinguish Indian crafts from imitations, the department has designed a distinctive label which will be registered under the Copyright Act for the exclusive use of attachment to Indian arts and crafts. This label will be given nationwide publicity and will offer the buyer in Canada a guarantee that the Indian article is genuine.
We were given, as I say, an indication by the Government through one of its Ministers that it had authority to deal with this question of imitations made in Canada. We felt, therefore, it was not necessary to deal with it in this bill. This does not detract from the importance of that phase of the matter. We hope that if the bill receives the endorsation of the House, the progress of the Native Cultural Council of Canada would influence the decision of the Government to deal with that particular aspect of the problem of Indian arts and crafts and enhance the position of the native Indian and Eskimo people in Canada.
If the bill receives second reading, Mr. Speaker, it would be my thought and hope to move a motion that it be referred to the appropriate Committee of the House. I do this for two reasons: First, because to my knowledge this is the first time such a bill

has been introduced into the Parliament of Canada dealing specifically with this aspect of artistic endeavour and cultural activity. Second, I would do so because it deals with the activities, rights and freedoms of a group of people, and such legislation should only pass after the people affected have had an opportunity to express their point of view upon it, and so that the legislation will reflect as correctly as it is possible to reflect the opinions, hopes, desires and aspirations of the native Indian and Eskimo people themselves. I hope the Bill will receive second reading. If and when it does, as I said, it is my intention to follow it up by a reference to a Committee so that these people affected, particularly the Indian and Eskimo people, may appear and give the Committee the benefit of their views on the bill.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes of this bill indicate that the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is proposing the establishment of a Native Cultural Council of Canada, the chief concern of which would be the promotion of Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts. I commend the hon. Member for his interest in this important phase of Indian and Eskimo activity.
The Government naturally agrees with the basic objective of the bill. However, protection of indigenous crafts is not a simple matter, and before supporting any proposed legislation in this regard the Government would insist on a thorough examination of all factors involved. In fact, studies in cooperation with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of External Affairs were initiated last year, and are continuing to determine legislation and other protective devices used in foreign countries to protect indigenous crafts with a view to recommending effective legislation in Canada.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
However, I should like to point out that the Government has been active in promoting native crafts and arts in various ways, including collaboration with the newly formed World Craft Council whose charter has been designed to become an arm of UNESCO in the promotion of indigenous arts and crafts, and has given every encouragement and assistance to the establishment and promotion of Indian art and craft centres, by establishing organized workshops and distribution centres for the manufacture and sale of their
May 14, 1965

production of various articles; a notable example of which is the very successful Eskimo art, expressed in soapstone, which you will agree enjoys almost world-wide distribution and brings a fair remuneration to the people of our Northland. Soapstone carvings and graphic arts, maintained at a standard of excellence, continue to bring the Eskimos, and Canada too, world-wide recognition.
According to our latest statistical information, in 1962 approximately $100,000 worth of graphic arts was sold by the Cape Dorset Co-operative alone. An increasing number of handicrafts, ranging from small sealskin animals and toys to delicately embroidered duffel coats, were produced to satisfy the growing market in Southern Canada. Although not attracting as much attention as the graphic arts or carvings, co-operatives based on logging, boat building and sealing also provided valuable business experience, employment and wages.
In addition to providing business experience and work opportunities, vital for a feeling of independence, the co-operatives also brought in more than $200,000 cash to northern communities during 1961. This amount was considerably higher, if not doubled, in 1962. Through participation in rehabilitation projects which produce and market a wide variety of goods and services, an additional $175,000 was earned by people in the North during 1962.
Two years ago I had the privilege of travelling through the Yukon and Northwest Territories and I had the unique opportunity of visiting some Eskimo homes and workshops where Eskimo carvings and drawings were made. At Tuktoyaktuk village on the shore of the Arctic Ocean I saw Eskimo women curing thin pieces of sealskin and other hides of various colours, and cutting designs to sew on to parkas, mukluks, gloves, hats and beautiful rugs. These items are manufactured under the direction of the competent officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and are shipped south to the markets of the world.
At Inuvik, the new community in the Northwest Territories, built by the Federal Government at a cost of approximately $42 million, I saw where Eskimo and Indian art found expression in fur, wood and stone. Only recently an exhibition of manufactured articles and drawings was held in Room 601 at the parliamentary restaurant. These articles were on display and orders were taken for future delivery.
This is one of the most helpful economic [DOT] developments in our northern territories,
Indian Affairs
which is developing craftsmen that can and do successfully compete with artists on this continent or those of Europe. I may also add that the Eskimos are experimenting with new techniques and entering new handicraft fields. Nearly every Indian band has an organized souvenir craft manufacturing centre, and though far short of making the Indian people independent, these activities do help their economy.
Mention may also be made of the close collaboration with the Canadian Handicraft Guild with respect to competitions for the best Indian handicrafts produced, and a brochure to promote future competitions.
The undertaking in regard to a distinctive protective label is being pursued initially through a nationwide competition among Indian students for the design of a label. Prizes will be awarded for the best designs and a grand prize awarded for the design chosen to protect Indian crafts produced and sold nationally and for export.
In addition to current efforts, plans are now being prepared for a vigorous five year development program in Indian arts and crafts industries. While details are not yet complete, the program will aim at encouraging craft skills to the fullest extent, fostering Indian owned enterprises through all stages from production to final marketing, and increasing revenues several times over. It is the intention to remove the type of reliance upon government which has been built up over the years and thereby create a fresh environment which will promote the self-help concept among the people concerned. Thorough Indian identification with and participation in the program will be a basic requirement.
The Indian people have a great deal of natural native ability and, as I have indicated, it is the intention of the Government to expand facilities for training. The greatest possible encouragement and incentive is being given, especially to the young Indians. Experimental programs are being undertaken to prepare young Indians for placement and specialized training which includes art craft, and thus create economic opportunities for them.
To indicate the government intentions of proceeding with programs designed to improve the lot of Indians everywhere, on April 6, 1965, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson) announced the appointment of Mr. Leonard Marchant a full blooded Indian, as his special assistant. He

May 14, 1965
Indian Affairs
is a member of the Okanagan Indian Band and is the first Indian to be appointed to the personal staff of a federal Minister.
He is also fully qualified for the position. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in agriculture from the university of his native province of British Columbia. He has also been very active in the promotion of closer relations between Canadian citizens of Indian and non-Indian origin. I met Mr. Marchant and I am very much impressed with his ability and personality. He is a man who is in a position to advise the Minister in the task of helping the Indian people to help themselves, which will include all phases of activities, among which the promotion of arts and crafts will receive utmost consideration.
Only a few weeks ago a gathering of social service personnel, school teachers, farmers, students, civil servants and recreation leaders from widely separated areas of Northwestern Ontario-half of the participants were Indians-held a two day meeting in my constituency for the purpose of creating a greater understanding of the economic problems of the Indian people and how to promote a better climate of opportunities for the Indians, including the extension of training of Indians in their natural talents, which of course include arts and crafts.
The gathering was also addressed by Wilfrid Pelletier, co-ordinator of Indian projects for the Centennial Commission and, as you know, Indians will have an important role in the centennial celebrations. A great national Indian pageant was suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in September 1963. Indians and Eskimos will have special displays of their arts and crafts at the World Exposition in 1967. In other words, the importance of the subject which Bill C-4 deals with is fully recognized by the Government.
May I also direct your attention to the fact that a national Indian Council does exist. This organization was formed in 1961 and its purpose, among other things, is the promotion of cultural activities including the preservation of the arts and crafts of the Indian people. The Eskimo population of Canada living as they do in the far reaches of the North, and being less numerous than the Indians, are protected and supervised by trained officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
With regard to the part of the bill dealing with the production of works which are not the genuine work of Indians or Eskimos, I agree with the mover of the bill that it is a matter of concern, and it should be looked into by some competent official to have the fraud exposed so that buyers of Indian and Eskimo works of art will recognize the genuine article from the spurious. The Eskimo carvings are actually protected by their individual labels and initials, and are less likely to be copied by manufacturers. However, I do agree with the statement of the Postmaster General (Mr. Tremblay) when he was Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in April 1964, about protecting the buying public from buying imitations of Indian arts and crafts. As I stated earlier, the Department has organized a competition among Indian students to design a distinctive label for Indian arts and crafts. The new Minister by approving the policy of offering protection from imitations and frauds is continuing the action of the previous minister. [DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Indian Advisory Councils are being set up through Canada composed of Indians nominated by registered Indians in their districts. The Indian Branch of the Department will consult these councils regularly, particularly in connection with any changes in policy or legislation that may be considered. Indians conduct their affairs within their communities with increasing efficiency and independence.
I might say, also, that Indians are increasing their interest in elections and Government activities and already their influence is felt at the polls. I look to the day-which may not be too distant-when the House of Commons welcomes, as its first Indian member, someone who was elected by a majority of all citizens in an electoral district, and not by Indians alone.
In the matter of the enlistment of Indian and Eskimo leadership we have already instituted programs in this direction and expect the Eskimos and Indians to be in a position to take a much more active part in the policy and management of the over-all services. The Indian and Eskimo committees act as groups of interested citizens in much the same way as the Council of the Northwest Territories who are, of course, at liberty to advise the Government.
I therefore submit that while the intention of this bill is commendable, the action recommended would serve only to duplicate efforts

May 14. 1965

which are already being made toward securing protection of Indian arts and crafts from imitation and fraud.


Frank Howard: Would the pariamentary
secretary permit a question? I did not quite understand what he said about one aspect of this subject. Did he say that with respect to this distinctive label which is to be used on original, authentic examples of Indian arts and crafts there is presently a competition among school children for a suitable design?


Hubert Badanai: That is correct. That is the competition which is now going on. The winner will get a prize and, of course, the label will be known as the proper label for these specific arts and crafts.


Frank Howard: On April 20 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the hon. Member for Matapedia-Matane who is now Postmaster General, read a letter in which it was stated that the department had designed a distinctive label and that this would be registered under the Copyright Act. That was in April, 1964. How does the hon. gentleman reconcile these statements? Was the Minister telling us a falsehood on April 20, 1964?


Hubert Badanai: My information is quite correct. The statement referred to by the hon. Member was to the effect that a design had been produced. Notwithstanding that fact, a competition is being held among all the students for the production of a suitable label.


Frank Howard: The Department must be working on Indian time.


Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: should like to speak on this bill for a few minutes. First, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) on the presentation of the bill and on the work he has put into it. I have in my constituency a reserve which has been doing a tremendous amount of craft work. In the last few years welfare payments have been cut out completely because of the revenue deriving from this craft work.
There is one important thing I should like to mention in connection with Indian and Eskimo crafts. We need markets for them. What better market could we find than our world fair in Montreal in 1967. I should like to ask the Government departments concerned, especially the Indian Affairs branch, the Department of Northern Affairs and the Department of Trade and Commerce, what preparations they are making toward the objective I have just mentioned. Are they plan-
Indian Affairs
ning to set up craft shops at the fair-shops of which our Eskimos, our Indians and, indeed, Canadians as a whole will be proud? We do not want craft shops set up to sell goods made by machines in Japan or some other country. I think the hon. Member for Skeena mentioned this a few moments ago. We want shops to display hand-made articles made through the crafts of our Canadian Indians and Eskimos. I suggest that the Department of Trade and Commerce should set aside money with which to buy this craft work which is being done by our people at the present time. The people of my reserve are looking for markets for their goods and they do not have sufficient money to stock them for future sales. I am sure there will be a splendid opportunity to sell these goods at the fair, because everybody who comes to Canada in 1967 will be looking for something which has been made by Indians or Eskimos. The Government should not wait, as it has done on other occasions, before initiating such a project. We should begin today. We must help our Indian and Eskimo people, and how better could we do so than by promoting the sale of these goods, so as to help make them independent? I feel the Government should take steps immediately to enable these people to go ahead with their crafts, to produce articles we shall all be proud of when our visitors come here-hand-made articles we shall be able to sell to them with pride.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaveniure):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the bill under discussion, I should like to congratulate the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), on the interest he has always shown for this class of citizens who were the first to inhabit our country.
It is all the more pleasant for me to make my humble contribution to this debate, because there are in my riding two Indian reserves which have been in Bonaventure from the earliest days. Those reserves are located at Maria and Restigouche, along the Bay of Chaleur. At those two places, but especially at Maria, the Micmac Indians specialize in the manufacture of baskets with a skill unsurpassed in Canada and even abroad. Indeed, the baskets made by the Micmacs at the Maria Indian reservation are in great demand among the tourists who visit our area and they are increasingly popular both in Canada and abroad.
That Micmac industry has developed considerably in the past ten years, under the

May 14, 1965
Indian Affairs
impetus of a devoted missionary who understands those people and their aspirations and who, so to speak, has become integrated with them, Rev. Roland Provost. To provide those Indians with a livelihood and to develop within these people a pride for their culture and their art, Father Provost did not hesitate not only to become a publicity agent for that Indian handicraft but also to go from door to door, in Montreal and in several American cities, to sell to the public the work of those worthy fellow citizens, the Indians of the riding of Bonaventure.
The work done by Father Provost to promote Indian art among his flock, while his ultimate purpose was to stimulate the pride of this important part of our fellow citizens so that they could participate through their culture, their talents and their ingenuity in the greatness and development of our country, deserves to be mentioned today. In gratitude, I should like to pay a public tribute to him for the grand job he has been doing during all the years he spent teaching the Indians of the Maria reserve. This Indian industry, at the Maria reserve, is developing all the time.
When Father Provost left, the Indian Affairs Branch organized the basket-making craft on a co-operative basis and it is doing very well. The same thing could be developed in the other reserve, at Restigouche, which, after all, was the first one established and is more important, because it is the oldest one, has more people and is better located geographically, if the Canadian government paid special attention to that art. With the talents displayed every day by our Indian fellow citizens, there is no reason to underestimate their initiative, for all they need is a helping hand to promote this industry which would be enhancing Canadian art and culture.
I take the opportunity afforded me by this debate to suggest that the government should intensify its relations with the Indian communities of the country, particularly in that part of the province of Quebec, in order to assist Indians anxious to participate in the Canadian economy, through substantial financial assistance, so that such an industry may be established where Indians of our reserves could develop and benefit by their many talents which, up to now, in many cases, has remained latent.
According to the explanatory notes, the purpose of this Bill No. C-4 is to preserve and promote native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts by the establishment of a native cultural council of Canada.

It would work in co-operation with UNESCO. One of the main provisions of this bill is to prohibit the importation into Canada of anything capable of passing as native Indian or Eskimo craftwork except under a certificate from the proposed council.
The government approves of course the main object of this bill. However, the protection of native arts and crafts is not so easily resolved as the hon. member for Skeena seems to think. Before endorsing any measure of this kind, the government wishes to study thoroughly all its possible aspects. As a matter of fact, the Indian Affairs Branch, last year made a serious study of this matter, in co-operation with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of External Affairs. These studies are being continued and are conducted for the purpose of getting acquainted with the proper legislation and other means used in other countries for the protection of native art, in order to be in a better position to recommend an efficient legislation for Canada.
In the meantime, the government has engaged actively in means of promoting native art in various ways, including a close cooperation with the World Craft Council set up recently and whose charter was so worded as to become an instrument for UNESCO in the promotion of native arts and crafts. It is also important to emphasize the close co-operation of the government with the Canadian Handicraft Guild concerning organized competition of the best piece of Indian handicraft and the publishing of a booklet fostering these competitions.
I may recall also this government's initiative for the adoption of a distinctive label for the protection of Indian crafts.
A competition has been opened among Indian students throughout the country for the best design. Prizes shall be awarded to contestants submitting the best drawings and a grand prize given for the drawing selected to protect Indian art produced and sold in this country and abroad.
Besides the efforts shown until now and the work in progress already referred to, the Department of Indian Affairs is laying plans for an extensive five-year program for the development of Indian art and handicraft. Although the details of the program have not been completed yet, its main purpose will be to encourage and develop talent and creativeness in the field of Indian art to the fullest extent possible. To achieve this goal, the government will assist, financially and
May 14, 1965

otherwise, Indian undertakings and industries at all stages, from the production to the marketing of their products. Thus, the craftsmen themselves, the Indians and the Eskimos, will be able, having not only the talent but the equipment, the advertising and the market, to get along on their own and to earn a living to support their families. Our Indians do not want to live off society or public handouts. Their great desire is to take part in their country's economic expansion. We must therefore give them the opportunity to make themselves known and to identify definitely with their compatriots, and to create for them, their arts and cultures a favourable climate. The Indians do not want anything more than to be considered Canadian citizens in the full sense of the word.
The present government has already taken important steps in that direction and the prospects are encouraging.
[DOT]	(5:40 p.m.)


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity of speaking briefly in support of the principle of Bill No. C-4 that has been introduced for discussion at this time. I notice in the explanatory note that the purpose of the Bill is "to preserve and promote native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts by the establishment of a Native Cultural Council of Canada". In stating my support I refer particularly to the first part, which is "to preserve and promote native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts". The technique by which this is to be accomplished is open for discussion. Whether the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) should be followed in their entirety, I am not quite sure; but I do recognize the value and importance of the objective which he seeks to realize through this particular bill.
I believe there is a gradually increasing awareness of the Indian and the Eskimo, as integral components in the Canadian picture. When we discuss this matter with various peoples and groups across the country, they refer to the fact that there is a growing awareness in their own communities of the importance of giving consideration to the place that the Indian and Eskimo peoples have in our national life, and they are desirous of making whatever contribution may be possible to enhance the position that these people have in our economy.
[DOT]	(5:50 p.m.)
We have had a great deal of discussion in this House with regard to the needs of these 22620-86
Indian Affairs
native peoples. There have been extended discussions about the problems of education, housing, employment, health, traditional rights and so on. We recognize and have emphasized the necessity for doing everything possible to assist our native peoples in raising their standing of living and in making a more adequate contribution to our society. I believe that this is necessary, and it is well. But I also believe that there must be a recognition of the contribution which the Indian and Eskimo peoples can make to Canadian development, if they are only given the chance and the opportunity.
We think of the entrance, for example, of some of the native peoples into the social and economic life of Canada, and this is appreciated by them. We find that where they have the opportunity they are capable of making a very worth-while contribution to the Canadian scene. We also recognize that the maintenance of the culture of these people is very necessary and essential. Within the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity of attending a convention of Indian peoples which was held in my own constituency. I discussed with them some of their problems and aspirations, and remember quite well the pride with which they spoke of their culture, their language, their arts and crafts and their desire that everybody should recognize these valuable assets and give what assistance could be given in their maintenance and development.
My appreciation of Indian arts and crafts goes back quite a few years, when just as a small chap I was employed in a store where we dealt to a considerable extent with the Indian peoples of the community. They brought in their products. They brought in the various goods which they had manufactured, and 1 remember how we used to look upon them as very interesting and really worth-while objects. So I have had a real appreciation for Indian crafts down through the years.
The bill which has been introduced is especially designed to promote and maintain Indian arts and crafts-a field of tremendous possibilities. Reference has been made to them in various documents, and I have one here with respect to economic development among the Eskimo people, a document put out by the Information Services Division of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It contrasts this aspect with some other aspects of development and says:
The handicraft instructor on the other hand has quite a different role to play. His job is not so

Mar 14. 1965
Indian Affairs
much to teach, but to draw out the skills and creative abilities of the people, and to channel these into the production of crafts which have a market.
I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that I was going to speak only briefly in support of this measure, but we have had brought to our attention the possibilities in this particular field. We have also had pointed out by various speakers some of the obstacles which the Indian and Eskimo people are facing in the marketing of their particular articles of arts and crafts. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government, the administration, give every encouragement in this particular field. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Badanai) has indicated some of the projects which are being put forth, and I believe they ought to be expanded.
In connection with other goods, imitations which are placed on sale, I believe every safeguard must be established so as to make sure that authentic Indian and Eskimo products receive their proper recognition and that people know when buying these goods by whom they were produced, and whether or not they are authentic. I do not know whether it is advisable to set up a council such as that proposed, with the authority to forbid the importation of such goods, unless by their approval. I do not know whether that is wise; but I do believe that every safeguard must be given this particular industry. It is also essential that the Indian and Eskimo people have the co-operation of the authorities and everyone else who can lend a hand in the establishment of marketing outlets for their particular arts and crafts.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be charged with talking this bill out; I just want to support the general principle involved in this particular measure.


Mr. Ian Watson (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, there are several very good qualities about the bill proposed today by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). One is his insistence that on the proposed council there be Indian and Eskimo membership. This is an idea which I think has to be stressed and restressed with the Indian Affairs branch. Because if in Canada
we are going to create a feeling of participation in our Canadian life among our Indian and Eskimo people, there must be more participation by them in our Government services and within any organization having to do with their lives.
I think the most important thing the Federal Government can do now to stimulate and protect Indian culture is to strengthen the Indian culture which exists at the local level, at the reserve level, by strengthening the reserves themselves and by strengthening local groups of Indians. The economic aspects of Indian arts and crafts are important, but I think by stimulating these arts and crafts an even more important result will be the creation of local pride, and pride in Indian and Eskimo identity. This pride is essential if our Indian and Eskimo people are going to play a full role in Canadian life.


Mr. Winkler:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Watson (Chafeauguay-Huniingdon-La-prairie):: May I call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for consideration of private Members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting House Leader what is the business for Monday, and perhaps he can tell us what else is expected for next week?


Eric Alfred Winkler: We will allow the hon. Member that privilege today.


John Watson MacNaught: Thank you. The first item of business on Monday will be third reading of Bill No. C-104, to amend the National Housing Act. Then we will resume the debate on second reading of an Act to make provision for the Retirement of Members of the Senate. Then we will take item No. 10 on today's Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice, a resolution concerning the setting up of a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the Government.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
May 14. 1965



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
The North Atlantic Council held its Spring Ministerial Meeting in London on 11th and 12th May, 1965.
2.	In a comprehensive survey of the international scene, Ministers noted that so far as Europe was concerned, the situation was basically unchanged. There had been no major crisis or confrontation, and the trend toward increased contacts between East and West had continued.
3.	Nevertheless, the fundamental causes of tension still persist, and little if any progress has been made toward removing them. Germany is still divided, and recent interferences with freedom of communication with Berlin have once again shown the dangers of this situation. In these circumstances, the Council associated itself with the Declaration issued by the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America on 12th May, 1965 (which is attached as an Annex to this Communique). At the same time, the Council confirmed the terms of its Declaration of 16th December, 1958, with regard to Berlin.
4.	Member states are determined to work together, in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Alliance, for peace, freedom and the rule of law. They remain ready to seize any opportunity for achieving progressively a genuine improvement in relations with the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe. Ministers agreed on the continuing necessity within the Alliance of exchanging information and views to the greatest extent possible, and of maintaining the maximum degree of harmonisation in the policies pursued by member countries.
5.	Ministers welcomed the continuing progress in political consultation within the Alliance. They observed with satisfaction that the practice had become more frequent of Ministers and high officials from capitals attending regular meetings of the Council in Permanent Session for discussion of subjects of special interest. They also noted that the Council in Permanent Session had embarked on the study of the state of the Alliance which it had been directed, at the last Ministerial meeting, to undertake. They instructed the Permanent Representatives to continue the
22620-86 i
examination of this question with a view to submitting to Ministers suggestions which could be discussed, if appropriate, at the December Ministerial meeting.
6.	The Ministers reviewed comprehensively the international situation with particular attention to areas of tension or conflict such as Malaysia, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic and some African States, where grave threats have arisen to international security and peace. They reaffirmed the right of all peoples to live at peace under governments of their own free choice.
7.	With regard to Greek-Turkish relations, Ministers took note of the Secretary General's report on the "Watching brief" which he continues to hold in conformity with the decision taken by Ministers at The Hague meeting. In the course of the Ministerial meeting, contacts took place between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Greece and Turkey. Taking note of this, the Council expressed its satisfaction and its desire that these contacts should continue in a constructive spirit with a view to normalising relations between these two member countries and promoting an improvement in the situation in Cyprus by assisting the efforts of the United Nations Force in Cyprus. It also expressed the hope that the search for an agreed and equitable solution of the Cyprus problem, in conformity with the relevant resolution of the United Nations Security Council, would thus be facilitated.
8.	The hope was expressed that, without prejudging the legal and political position of any member country, an early solution would be found to the difficulties facing the United Nations, in order that the world organization might be enabled to play its proper role in helping to preserve international peace and security.
9.	Ministers reaffirmed their interest in the stability and the economic and social welfare of the developing countries.
10.	Ministers expressed their regret that so little progress had been made toward disarmament. For their part, they will continue to press for active negotiations to achieve measures of disarmament under ef-
[Stage Direction]
May 14, 1965
fective international control. They also emphasised the importance they attach to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
11.	So long as the threat of aggression, direct or indirect, persists, the prime task of the Atlantic Alliance will be to maintain a defensive posture adequate to deter attack and meet it effectively should the need arise. The Council expressed the hope that the meeting of Defence Ministers to be held in Paris on 31st May and 1st June would lead to further progress in elucidating the complex and inter-related problems of strategy, force requirements, and resources.
12.	A meeting of the Council at Ministerial level will be held in Paris in December 1965.
Annex

[Stage Direction]
The Governments of the Republic of France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, together with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, have recently undertaken a further examination of the German problem and of the prospects for a resumption of discussions on this subject with the Government of the Soviet Union. The three Governments have taken this action by virtue of the obligations and responsibilities concerning Germany, including Berlin and access thereto, devolving upon them since the end of the second world war and which they share with the Government of the Soviet Union.
Further study will be given to the possibility of an approach to the Soviet Government on this subject, with due regard to the prospect of such an approach leading to useful results.
The three Governments consider that in the absence of a real solution of the German problem, based on the exercise in the two parts of Germany of the right of selfdetermination, the situation in Europe as a whole will remain unsettled and that in consequence peace will not be fully assured on that continent. This solution is necessary not only in the interest of the German people, which asks for its reunification, but in the interest of all European peoples as well as other peoples concerned.
It is evident that the necessary settlement can only be achieved by peaceful means and in circumstances involving a general agreement assuring the security of all European states. The three Governments are convinced that the Government of the Federal Republic, which has solemnly renounced the use of force, is in agreement with them on these points. They reaffirm their belief that, in the interests of the peace of Europe and of the world, the necessary decisions cannot be indefinitely postponed.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 17, 1965