1966-07-11

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister);: Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to announce to members of the house the death this morning of a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council, General A. G. L. McNaughton, after a career of continuous service to his country in war and peace, service of the greatest distinction, extending over more than 60 years.
The value to his country of General McNaughton's services was equalled only by the courage and unselfishness he always showed in performing those services. On the military side perhaps he was best known as the first commander of Canada's First Army overseas, and for the magnificent way in which he prepared that army for the great part it was to play in the liberation of Europe.
After the war, when General McNaughton had so richly earned rest and retirement, his activities if anything increased. Among other things he represented Canada very ably at the United Nations when our country was first elected to the security council. He also served with distinction for many years as chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission.
General McNaughton was always active and vigorous in public affairs, right up to the day of his death, especially in promoting what he considered to be right policies in the preservation and the development of our natural resources. In a very real sense he died in action and he would never have had it any other way. My own friendship with General McNaughton, which I shall always cherish, goes back for many years. He was a warm hearted, whole souled and high minded gentleman.
There was nothing mean or small about nim, but much that was brave and good and wise. Canada has lost one of its most distinguished sons. I send my deepest sympathy to Mrs. McNaughton and the members of the family.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I join with the Prime Minister in the expression of sympathy to General McNaughton's widow and the members of his family. He served his country in many capacities. During the first world war he gave distinguished service and through his initiative brought about changes in artillery warfare which are still being followed today. After the war he resumed his position in the scientific world and gave of his best.
During the period between the first and second world wars he continued to take an interest in the armed forces, and then took the Canadian army overseas. The circumstances in which he ceased to command that army in action will be for historians to determine. The Prime Minister mentioned the fact that he was a member of the Privy Council of Canada. I well recall the circumstances in which he assumed the position of minister of defence in succession to Colonel Ralston. During the period of his life in active politics he took stands which were not generally acceptable, but he was able to do so because of the great respect he had built up in the years of service to his country. I believe that when history writes the story of his life it will be said of him that, while he served well in many capacities, and combined as it were, two careers, that of science and that of the military, his outstanding contribution was his devotion to Canada in connection with those matters which came under his jurisdiction as the chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission.
To his widow and his family the condolences of this house will be conveyed. This was a Canadian who in his day and generation, whatever the differences and the difficulties may have been, followed the course that he determined was for the benefit of Canada.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: The members of the New Democratic Party desire to join hon. members of all parties in paying tribute to General McNaughton and the very great services which he has rendered to this country. As hon. members know, he was born in Moosomin, Saskatchewan, and the people of that province always looked
July 11. 1966
7448	COMMONS
Tributes to General A. G. L. McNaughton upon him as one of their native sons who earned great distinction. They will always remember him with great pride.
As the commander of the Canadian army in the second world war he won the esteem and affection of the men who served under him. As minister of defence he gave this country great leadership. I owed a personal debt to him because while he held that office he arranged for me to visit Saskatchewan personnel overseas, and I shall never forget his many kindnesses to me on that occasion.
In the field of science, as head of the research council, he did valuable work for his country. As chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission I for one can testify to the effective way in which he upheld Canada's rights on the commission. I remember one or two disputes we had about conserving Canadian water, which was a very scarce commodity on the prairies, and because of the battle which he put up so effectively we were able to carry out programs which otherwise would have been impossible.
However, I think his most distinguished feature was that as he grew older in years he remained eternally young in spirit. In recent years he became the chief proponent in Canada of policies for the conservation of Canada's water resources, and while for a time it seemed he was a voice crying in the wilderness I think the aroused public interest in this question today is a credit to his tenacity and his foresight.
I am sure members in all parties in the house will want to join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in conveying to Mrs. McNaughton, and the members of the General's family our deepest sympathy, along with an expression of our pride in one of the great Canadians of our generation.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, General McNaughton was unquestionably a great and, in every way, a distinguished Canadian.
The members of the Ralliement Creditiste join the right hon. Prime Minister in offering Mrs. McNaughton and her family their deepest sympathy. Many Canadians considered the general as their hero, and I am sure all of Canada mourns this great loss to the country.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we all share a feeling of loss at the death of General McNaughton as we join in the expressions of sympathy that have been uttered by the right hon. Prime Minister and the other party leaders in the house. He was indeed a great soldier, a statesman, a scientist, a humanitarian, a Canadian of tireless energy and great intellectual capacity.
But what is more important, Mr. Speaker, is that in this day of conformity he dared to be an individualist. He held strong opinions and expressed them clearly and forcefully without waiting first to see which way the political wind was blowing. Those who knew him well and worked with him will remember his warm personality and will remember him as one whose insight into the needs of his country and whose powers of persuasion played a great role in preserving our national status.
General McNaughton never let the problems of a situation or the fatigue of advanced years thwart him from the duty at hand. Even after he had retired he continued to take an active role in public affairs. We sometimes had occasion to disagree with him, but we always respected him as a sagacious gentleman.
Historians will discuss his views for many years to come. His opinions on the second world war, his statements on the cold war, on our relationship with the United States, on our national water resources and on a host of other subjects will form the basis of many a learned debate. One thing is certain; he had the courage of his convictions and the more people we have like him the better off we will be. Canada has lost a great and devoted servant. Our deepest sympathy is extended to Mrs. McNaughton and the family, whose grief the nation shares.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



EDUCATION


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, recently I have been asked a number of questions by hon. members concerning the procedures being followed by the provincial authorities in issuing certificates of eligibility to students to entitle them to loans under the Canada Student Loans Act. I thought it would be helpful to members of
July 11, 1966

the house if I tabled a copy of the approved revised report of the federal-provincial standing committee on the concept of students' needs. This was agreed to by representatives of all the participating provinces at a meeting convened by the Department of Finance on April 29 of this year. I therefore ask leave of the house to table two copies of this report in the original English version and in a French translation.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: It will be recalled that the
statute passed in 1964 authorizes loans to be made to students who are certified by the appropriate authority in each participating province to be in need of a loan of a specified amount. The provincial governments have co-operated by designating such authorities in their provinces, thereby enabling our legislation to be effective. They have also integrated it in varying degrees with their own student aid programs which include many bursaries awarded after a careful appraisal of the needs of the various applicants.
The provincial authorities have felt, and we have agreed, that we should strive for as much consistency as possible among participating provinces in the practices and standards they apply in administering this program, recognizing, of course, the need for some flexibility to allow for special circumstances and conditions. With this in mind we have encouraged and assisted provincial representatives to meet together periodically, and representatives of the Department of Finance have met with them. We have recognized that under our legislation the provincial authorities have the authority and responsibility for determining the relative need of the various applicants for student loans and thereby ensuring a fair apportionment among students of the amount of guaranteed loans which parliament has authorized.
In view of the terms of our legislation all of us, the provinces and the federal government, have proceeded on the general basis that need must be taken into account, and we have endeavoured to co-ordinate and work out with the provinces sensible principles to be observed in doing this. The agreed principles are expressed in the report I have tabled.
Air Transport
It is of course necessary for the provincial authorities to translate these agreed principles into particular practices and forms. Although we are usually aware of the practices they follow, we do not have the authority or desire to tell them just what they should do.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, would there be agreement on the part of the minister and the house to have this report printed as an appendix to Hansard, because of the wide interest in dissemination of this information?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that the report in question be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of report referred to above, see Appendix "A".]



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the conference between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean countries which came to an end on Friday last, I should like to table the final communique of that conference together with the report of its economic committee and the text of the protocol modifying the Canada-West Indian trade agreement of 1925. Perhaps it would meet the wishes of the house if these documents were printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of communique and other documents referred to above see Appendix "B".]



AIR TRANSPORT


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the text of an agreement signed today between Canada and the Soviet union providing for direct air service between Montreal and Moscow, along with an exchange of letters on matters arising out of that agreement between the Minister of Transport of the Canadian government and the Minister of Civil Aviation of the government of the Soviet union.

July 11, 1966
Air Transport


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps hon. members would like to have this document also printed as an appendix to today's Hansard. If the house is agreeable, I so move.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether we should be cluttering Hansard in this regard. It is my thought that all these documents should be printed in Votes and Proceedings, although a decision has been made in the other two cases.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the house prefers to do that, it is agreeable.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think the original decision of the house appropriately meets the situation. If there is wide interest in these agreements should they not be printed in the document which receives the wider circulation? We think this should be appended to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it my understanding that an order has been passed for the printing of these documents as an appendix to Hansard?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be no agreement as to the second document. The suggestion has been made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that the document referred to by the Prime Minister in his second statement be printed in Votes and Proceedings. There must be general agreement and as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated, he would prefer to have the document printed as an appendix to Hansard rather than in Votes and Proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister originally suggested that the document be appended to Hansard and that the Leader of the Opposition suggested an alternative. I think the Prime Minister's original suggestion is the better one.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, it is my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the document be printed in Votes and Proceedings, to which the Prime Minister agreed. I think that was the agreement eventually arrived at.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand an order of the house was made in regard to the first appendix, and that the right hon. gentleman then expressed some concern that we would be "cluttering Hansard'' by printing in Hansard this type of agreement. He suggested that perhaps the second agreement could be printed in Votes and Proceedings and I indicated that I was quite agreeable to that suggestion if it met the general desire of the house. I have no particular preference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should come to some agreement in this regard. It appears to me that the greater number of members prefer having this document printed in Votes and Proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In that there is no agreement and there can be no printing as suggested unless a motion is put and a vote taken, no action will be taken.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
July 8-The Minister of Transport-the following proposed motion:-that the annual reports for 1965 of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, both tabled on April 20, 1966, the auditor's report to parliament for 1965 in respect of the Canadian National Railways, tabled on May 12, 1966, the budget for 1966 of the Canadian National Railways, tabled on April 20, 1966, the annual report of Air Canada for 1965, the auditor's report to parliament for 1965 in respect of Air Canada, both tabled on March 29, 1966, and the budget for 1966 of Air Canada, tabled January 18, 1966, be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the house.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous agreement and no one wants to debate this purely formal motion perhaps it can be adopted now. I do not think we want to embark on a debate at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 11, 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: That the annual reports for 1965 of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, both tabled on April 20, 1966, the auditors' report to parliament for 1965 in respect of the Canadian National Railways, tabled on May 12, 1966, the budget for 1966 of the Canadian National Railways, tabled on April 20, 1966, the annual report of Air Canada for 1965, the auditor's report to parliament for 1965 in respect of Air Canada, both tabled on March 29, 1966, and the budget for 1966 of Air Canada, tabled on January 18, 1966, be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Has approval been given to government assistance in the construction of a multi-purpose exhibition building for Antigonish, Nova Scotia?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: No.


C.B.C. BROADCASTING ON HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Noble: How much broadcast time containing Canadian material has been allocated by C.B.C. Radio and C.B.C. TV during the past two years to matters of highway safety?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that approximately 100 hours were broadcast on C.B.C. radio networks and stations and approximately 75 hours on C.B.C. television networks and stations, predominantly in the form of brief public service announcements.


HALIFAX-OVERDUE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Mr. Forestall: 1.	Are there any payments overdue to the city of Halifax on behalf of the National Harbours Board, the Canadian National Railways, and other government agencies, in lieu of taxes for each of the past 3 years and the present year?
2.	If any such payments are overdue (a) how long have they been overdue (b) in what amounts (c) on behalf of which agency of government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Transport as follows:
Questions
1.	Payments in lieu of taxes are ex gratia in nature and cannot be described as overdue inasmuch as no legal liability has been incurred in respect of them. The various federal agencies operating in Halifax do pay annual grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities. Efforts are made to have the payments effected during the financial year of the municipality to which they relate. However, it is not always possible to settle grants before the end of the municipality's financial year. In the city of Halifax, the amounts of the grants in respect of 1965 and 1966 have not yet been finally determined or paid by one agency, i.e., the National Harbours Board. Payments in respect of 1964 and 1963 have been settled in all instances.
2.	The payment of grants in lieu of taxes in so far as the National Harbours Board is concerned for the calendar years 1965 and 1966 have been delayed due to the time required to determine the amounts payable under a new formula which increases the grants. However, an interim payment for the year 1965 has been made in the amount of $148,350 to the city of Halifax and the remainder will be paid as soon as the necessary assessment values and calculations have been determined to fix the exact amount of the grant. All grants have been made up to and including 1964 and an interim payment for the year 1965.


INQUIRY AS TO DETENTION OF ERIC SCHMIDT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Had the Government of Canada been advised of the detention of a Canadian citizen, Eric Schmidt, of Edmonton, Alberta, by the authorities of the German Democratic Republic prior to his release in 1965 after 75 days of incarceration?
2.	If so, what representations did the government make, if any, to ascertain the reasons for this detention and to assure the earliest possible release of Mr. Schmidt?
3.	Does the government now propose to file protest with the German Democratic Republic or some other appropriate authority if it deems the detention to have been illegal?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No. The first information we had regarding this matter was that contained in an article which appeared in the Telegram, Toronto, May 4, 1966 following Mr. Schmidt's return to Canada.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	The Canadian Government does not recognize the East German regime and maintains no diplomatic relations with it. If it were

July 11. 1966
Questions
decided to pursue a matter of this kind it would be necessary to take it up through the Soviet occupation authorities. The Department of External Affairs is writing to Mr. Schmidt to invite him to provide a report on his arrest in East Germany, following which the department will consider whether further action may be warranted in the circumstances.


PROTEST TO RUSSIA RESPECTING TREATMENT OF JEWS
Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the government of Canada make an official protest to the U.S.S.R. regarding the Investigations imposed upon or suffered by Jewish citizens in the U.S.S.R., which by discriminatory measures deny Jews the full right to practise their religion in freedom?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government of Canada has many times expressed its concern about violations of human rights wherever and whenever they occur in any part of the world.
In seeking the best means of helping to bring these violations to an end, it is obviously necessary to take account of all the relevant circumstances. The carefully considered judgment of the government at the present time is that representations on this subject beyond those already made would be considered if it is established that such action would be in the best interests of those most directly concerned.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY STAFF
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,631
Mr. Salisman:: 1.	What is the total staff of the Department of Industry?
2.	How many of these are professionally trained in the Helds of economics, law, business administration, engineering, accounting and planning?
3.	How many of these have post graduate training?
4.	What are the salaries in each of these fields in the department?
5.	What vacancies exist in each of these fields in the department?
6.	Is it the intention of the department to enlarge its staff?
7.	How many of the staff are engaged in economic research and planning?
8.	What research projects are in progress by the department?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	435.
2.	144.

3.	65.
4.	$8,135 to $27,000.
5.	The present officer vacancy in the department is 104. The particular types of training mentioned in question 2 form the basic qualifications for the general class of industrial development analysts which form the basic officer strength in the department.
6.	The department is carrying out a continuing recruiting program in an attempt to fill the approved establishment.
7.	The number of staff engaged in economic research and planning is 23. In addition to those directly engaged as economists, a considerable portion of the time of other officers is used in the collection and assembly of data necessary for the economic studies of the various industries.
8.	Research studies in progress consist of studies of regional growth, studies of productivity, studies of the various industries from the standpoint of structure, competitiveness in domestic and export markets, costs, productivity, profitability and the effect of government policies including tariffs and taxation, and import analysis.


GRANT TO CRIMINOLOGY CENTRE, TORONTO UNIVERSITY
Mr. Slarr: 1.	Has the federal government either directly or indirectly provided for a grant for the centre of criminology at the University of Toronto?
2.	If so, how much has been disbursed to date and what further amount of grant is to be made?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Yes.
2.	A grant of $40,000 was provided in the
Department of Justice estimates for 1964-65. It was paid in full on April 12, 1965.


DRUG PURCHASES BY FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTRES
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Do hospitals and medical centres under federal jurisdiction buy drugs under their generic names or under their brand names?
2.	What is the percentage of each?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned:
1.	Yes. The Department of Defence Production purchases drugs under their generic names and brand names for the Department of National Defence.
July 11, 1966

2.	Generic names, 95 per cent; brand names, 5 per cent.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
1.	The bulk of the drugs used in the hospitals and treatment centres of the Department of National Health and Welfare are purchased under generic name. Some purchases are made by brand name to accommodate the requirements of certain fee for service physicians, who refuse to prescribe or use pharmaceuticals produced by what are to them unknown manufacturers.
2.	It is estimated that 85 per cent of the drugs used are purchased by generic name and 15 per cent by brand name.
In so far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned:
1.	Drugs are purchased by the Department of Veterans Affairs under both generic names and brand names. Under departmental policy drugs are to be requested by generic names wherever possible, although trade names may also be used for purposes of identification or where one brand of drug may be available from only one source of supply.
2.	It is estimated that 65 per cent of the drug purchases by the Department of Veterans Affairs are made under brand names and 35 per cent under generic names.


CONSTRUCTION OF CORRIDOR ROAD THROUGH U.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have any negotiations or discussions taken place between the government of Canada and the government of the United States with regard to the construction of a corridor road between the province of New Brunswick and the province of Quebec and, if so, what has been the result of these discussions?
2.	Has a proposal been made by the government of the United States to the government of Canada indicating a willingness by the government of the United States to construct a corridor road from New Brunswick to Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont to the New York state throughway in exchange for Canada paving the Alaska highway and, if so, what has been the reaction to this proposal?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: 1. No such negotiations or discussions have taken place.
2. No such proposal has been received.


HIGHWAY SAFETY PROMOTION
Mr. Noble: Has the government taken any action in regard to the promotion of highway safety and, if so, what
action?
Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes.
In so far as the Departments of Defence Production and Industry are concerned:
1.	The Canadian government specifications board has prepared a draft automotive vehicle safety code in collaboration with the Canadian Good Roads Association and the traffic injury research foundation. The draft has been submitted for critical review to a committee consisting of representatives of the provinces, the motor vehicle manufacturers, safety groups, the medical profession and others. A revised draft is now being prepared.
2.	The government has undertaken to include all available safety features in the specifications governing the procurement of conventional type vehicles for both civilian departments and the military.
3.	Two consultants have been engaged; one to assist on the automotive safety code and the other to conduct research studies.
4.	Consideration is being given to what other steps the federal government can usefully take in the light of the constitutional position and the relative responsibilities of the provinces and the government in this area.


APPLICATIONS FOR EXEMPTION UNDER LABOUR CODE
Mr. Dionne: Have any Canadian employers submitted reouests for deferment of the operation of the labour code in their undertakings and, if so (a) who are they (b) what reasons were given by such employers for requesting deferment of the operation of the labour code and of the regulations made thereunder (c) were all requests submitted by the different employers granted (d) if not, what are the names of the employers whose requests were refused?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Yes. Deferment can only be granted with respect to the operation of part I and section 11 of part II of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
(a)	Lists of employers who have applied for deferment of the operation of part I and section 11 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code can be found in part I of the Canada Gazettes of: August 28, 1965 at page 2,831 and page 2,860; September 25, 1965 at page 3,119 and page 3,160; October 9, 1965 at page 3,293 and page 3,325; October 16, 1965 at page 3,366 and page 3,388; October 23, 1965 at page 3,427 and page 3,459; October 30, 1965 at page 3,503

July 11, 196&
Questions
and page 3,534; November 6, 1965 at page 3,618 and page 3,656; November 13, 1965 at page 3,702 and page 3,752; November 20, 1965 at page 3,807 and page 3,844; December 4, 1965 at page 3,994 and page 4,031; December 11, 1965 at page 4,071 and page 4,111; December 25, 1965 at page 4,211 and page 4,243; January 1, 1966 at page 19 and page 32; January 29, 1966 at page 355 and page 377; February 12, 1966 at page 521 and page 547.
(b)	The introduction of the standard hours of work or the maximum hours of work under part I
(i)	would be or is unduly prejudicial to the interests of the employees therein or to any class of employees therein, or
(ii)	Would be or is seriously detrimental to the operation of the federal work, undertaking or business.
The immediate introduction of the minimum wages under part II
(i)	Would unduly prejudice the interests of the employees therein or any class of employees therein, or
(ii)	Would be seriously detrimental to the operation of the federal work, undertaking or business.
(c)	No.
(d)	Under section 52 of the following submissions have been rejected before June 20, 1966:
Royal Bank of Canada; Canadian Pacific Railway, Canadian National Railway and Northern Alberta Railways; Bank of Nova Scotia; Bank Provincial du Canada; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; Toronto Dominion Bank; Canadian Pacific Great Lakes Steamships Company; Canadian National Railway Hotels; R. J. De Nure Trailways Limited; Gray Coach Lines Limited; Mc-Naughton Bus Lines Ltd; Mystery Lake Broadcasting Ltd.; Mr. R. F. Welch on behalf of R. F. Welch Ltd. and R. F. Welch (British Columbia Limited); Hudson's Bay Co.; Le Syndicat National Des Debardeurs de La Baie Des Ha! Ha!; Eastern Canada Shipping Ltd.; Rail and Water Terminal Ltd.;
Under section 51 the following submissions have been rejected before June 20, 1966:
CJPM-TV Inc.; CKTR (1958) Ltee.; The Galt Broadcasting Company Limited; La Tribune Inc.


EUROPEAN STUDENTS WOULD COME TO WORK IN CANADA
Mr. Dionne: Did any European students come during 1965 and 1966 to work on fruit or tobacco farms in Ontario-or in other provinces under an agreement with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and, if so (a) how many (b) on what conditions?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No such students came forward in 1965 or thus far in 1966. However, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has approved the temporary entry of the following student groups for 1966.
(i)	340 Belgian university students for work on Southwestern Ontario tobacco farms owned by Belgian Canadians. The movement is sponsored by the Belgian in The World Association which will be fully responsible for transportation, employment, welfare and all other matters involving the students during their stay in Canada from August 1st to mid-September, 1966. The Delhi Belgian Club and the Sacred Heart Church, Langton, Ontario will assist with the placement on farms.
(ii)	66 Austrian university students for work on Ontario tobacco farms. The movement is sponsored by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board of Till-sonburg. The Board has guaranteed employment from August 1st to September 15th, 1966 at a rate of $16 a day plus room and board. The Board has also guaranteed accommodation for the students. The students will make their own arrangements for hospital and medical coverage while they are in Canada and will be responsible for their own transportation.
(iii>
150 French university students for work on Ontario tobacco farms. The movement is sponsored by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board of Till-sonburg under exactly the same terms and conditions which apply for the Austrian students.


MAPLE LEAF SERVICES
Mr. Madill: 1.	Who receives the one dollar ($1.00) per car being charged by the Department of National Defence for stickers for employees bringing on base their cars which are supposed to have been inspected by Maple Leaf Services?
2.	Who receives the fifty (50) cents per sticker that is put on each vehicle by Maple Leaf Services?
3.	Are the men performing this vehicle safety check licensed mechanics or qualified, as required by the Department of Transport?
July 11, 1966

4.	Is an annual statement made public of the *business transactions and disbursements of Maple Leaf Services operating on Department of National Defence bases?
5.	Why are the businesses leasing from Maple Leaf Services not forced to pay commercial and business taxes to the townships in which they are located when the department gives a grant in lieu of taxes to those municipalities?
6.	Do the rates of pay to employees of Maple Leaf Services meet that of the National Labour Code?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. The Department of National Defence does not charge or receive $1 per car for stickers. However, this sum is charged by Maple Leaf Services at Canadian forces base Borden for the service performed in carrying out a safety check of a vehicle and is actually at or below cost. A vehicle owner is not obliged to have the service carried out by Maple Leaf Services but may have his vehicle safety check done at any of the free check points maintained by the Ontario Department of Transport throughout the province.
2.	The charge of 50 cents per sticker is not levied by Maple Leaf Services. Upon proof of having passed the vehicle safety check and of having insurance coverage on a vehicle, military and civilian vehicle owners employed at Canadian forces base Borden are issued with a permanent vehicle base pass in the form of a sticker which is placed on the windshield. This money is administered by the base military authorities and is used to cover the cost of the stickers and administrative costs related thereto. The issue of a permanent pass is general practice at most military bases, although the type of sticker and the charge may vary.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	The position of a business operating under a lease from Maple Leaf Services is no different from any other business. As such the lessee is liable to comply with all federal, provincial and municipal laws, regulations and ordnances relating to taxation and assumes complete and sole liability to do so under the terms of the lease agreement. The application of grants to the municipality is not relevant.
6.	Maple Leaf Services pays their employees according to provincial requirements; however, the question as to whether M.L.S. comes under the Canada Labour (Standards)
Questions
Code is one which is now receiving consideration by M.L.S. and the appropriate federal government departments concerned.


RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING BREATHA-LIZER TESTS AND EXHAUST CONTROL DEVICES
Mr. Noble: Does the government plan on taking early action on the recommendations made June 21, 1966, by the special fifty-member committee of government officials and safety experts, especially in making the breathalizer test mandatory and the requiring of pollution control devices for motor vehicle exhaust systems?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government is giving consideration to the recommendations made by the Canadian government specifications board committee on the automotive vehicle safety code held on 20-21 June 1966.
1.	In so far as making the breathalizer test mandatory is concerned, the recommendation regarding the principle of implied consent respecting breathalizer testing is being referred to provincial authorities by the committee.
2.	The recommendation to amend the Criminal Code making it a criminal offence to operate a vehicle while the alcohol content of the operator's breath exceeds a specified limit, as determined by the breathalizer test, is being referred to the Department of Justice and to the chairman of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs that is now studying Bill C-87.
In so far as requiring of pollution control devices for motor vehicle exhaust systems is concerned, the committee recommended that the standard for the pollutants omission control be deleted from the proposed standards because: (a) It is not yet agreed that this is indeed a safety device, (b) The Department of National Health and Welfare is making a detailed study of the problem of air contamination in close consultation with their counterparts in the United States.


* AMOUNTS PAID JOINT CHAIRMEN OF B AND B COMMISSION
Mr. Madill: What was the total amount paid for (a) honoraria (b) travelling expenses, living expenses, and other expenses, to Mr. Dunton and Mr. Laurendeau, the joint chairmen of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, in each year since the inception of the commission?

July 11. 1966
Questions


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the royal commission as follows:
(a) Honoraria: Mr. Laurendeau, co-chairman and chief executive officer of the commission working full time since the beginning of 1964-65 on commission business received $10,200 in 1963-64, $21,800 in 1964-65, $20,400 in 1965-66, and $3,500 to the end of May 1966. Mr. Dunton, co-chairman, received $7,750 in 1963-64, $13,450 in 1964-65, $11,150 in 1965-66, and $1,950 to the end of May 1966. (b) Travel expenses: Mr. Laurendeau, who is resident in Montreal and receives travel expenses for time spent on commission business away from that city, received $1,887.50 in 1963-64, $4,354.42 in 1964-65, $3,730.93 in 1965-66, and $305.55 to the end of May 1966. Mr. Dunton, resident in Ottawa and receiving travel expenses while on commission business away from that city, received $439.95 in 1963-64, $2,133.60 in 1964-65, and $1,467.75 in 1965-66.


IMMIGRATION APPLICATIONS FROM COMMUNIST AND NON-COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
Mr. Allmand: 1.	What percentage of applicants for admission to Canada from communist countries were actually admitted during 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	How does this percentage compare with the equivalent average of applicants from non-communist countries?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. Information not available.
1.
Number of loans Amount of loans
2.	1963
	Number	Amount
Province	of loans	of loansBritish Columbia ....	.. 309	$ 2,763,773Alberta 	.. 255	1,946,661Saskatchewan 	.. 166	1,228,778Manitoba 	.. 127	943,527Ontario	.. 836	7,430,179Quebec 	.. 714	7,602,141New Brunswick	.. 46	415,589Nova Scotia	.. 72	696,095Prince Edward Island	.. 18	132,929Newfoundland 	.. 15	119,8452,558	$23,279,517


CLOSING OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICES, PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Olson: Does the Unemployment Insurance Commission intend to close any of its present offices in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba and, if so (a) how many (b) what are the names of cities or towns where offices will be closed (c) what arrangements are to be made for U.I.C. service in the cities or towns where the offices will be closed (d) in the case of each office that will be closed, which remaining office will serve the area?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission that it has decided to close some offices in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
(a) Three, (b) Portage la Prairie, Manitoba; Swift Current, Saskatchewan; North Battle-ford, Saskatchewan.
(c)	Service will be provided by mail through the offices referred to in (d).
(d)	Winnipeg will service the Portage la Prairie area; Regina will service the Swift Current area and Saskatoon will service the North Battleford area.


APPLICATIONS UNDER SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many applications have been approved under the Small Businesses Loans Act in the years 1963, 1964 and 1965, and what was the total amount loaned under the act in each of those years?
2.	What was the breakdown by provinces and the total amounts loaned in each of them for each of the years in question?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1963	1964	19652,558	2,847	2,835$23,279,517	$26,534,207	$26,033,0941964	1965Number	Amount	Number	Amountof loans	of loans	of loans	of loans401	$ 3,768,254	456	$ 4,364,580294	2,533,237	300	2,504,852234	1,976,319	257	2,199,186143	1,137,445	138	964,946901	8,140,100	873	7,605,559722	7,462,553	628	6,824,47552	526,736	63	550,35061	569,281	79	661,94622	223,529	27	209,18917	196,753	14	148,0112,847	$26,534,207	2,835	$26,033,094
[Mr. Madill.J
July 11. 1966


EXCHANGE OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO PROMOTE BILINGUALISM
Mr. McCleave: Has the Prime Minister or anybody on his behalf written to any assistant deputy ministers or others at top levels in the civil service to inquire whether they would move to Quebec temporarily to perfect their bilingualism?


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister: As recently announced, the Prime Minister has written to all ministers asking them to send nominations of senior officials from the department and agencies under their control, from which could be met the initial requirements for the 1966-67 term of the program to promote bilingualism in the public service. Under this program, as the Prime Minister announced in the house on April 6, 1966, a number of senior officials plus their families will spend a 12-month period in Quebec city in the case of English speaking public servants, and in Toronto in the case of French speaking public servants. In this way they may devote their full time to becoming proficient in the second official language of the country and to obtaining a better understanding of the cultural values of the community they will be visiting.



Mr. McCleave: Has the prime minister or anybody on his behalf written to any assistant deputy ministers or others at top levels in the civil service to inquire whether they would move to Toronto temporarily to perfect their bilingualism?


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister: As recently announced, the Prime Minister has written to all ministers asking them to send nominations of senior officials from the departments and agencies under their control, from which could be met the initial requirements for the 1966-67 term of the program to promote bilingualism in the public service. Under this program, as the Prime Minister announced in the house on April 6, 1966, a number of senior officials plus their families will spend a 12-month period in Quebec city in the case of English speaking public servants, and in Toronto in the case of French speaking public servants. In this way they may devote their full time to becoming proficient in the second official language of the country and to obtaining a better understanding of the cultural values of the community they will be visiting.
Questions


SUPERINTENDENT OF WOMEN'S PRISON, KINGSTON
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancou-ver-Kingsway): 1.	On what date will an appointment be made of a permanent superintendent for the women's prison at Kingston?
2.	How many applications have been received to
date?
3.	Will the superintendent chosen be a woman?
Hon, L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General): 1.
An appointment will be made as soon as a suitable candidate is found.
2. 12.
3.	Yes, if at all possible.


FEMALE PRISONERS, MATSQUI INSTITUTION
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancou-ver-Kingsway): 1.	How many women prisoners are expected to arrive at the Matsqui institution for drug addicts in July, 1966?
2.	How many of these are being transferred from the women's prison at Kingston?
3.	How many of these have signified their desire to be transferred?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1, 2
and 3. 10.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the number of Canadian-owned (a) aircraft (b) vessels?
2.	For each department of the Government of Canada (a) how many aircraft and vessels are attached to their services (b) what is the annual maintenance cost for these aircraft and vessels?
Return tabled.


JUDGES PARTICIPATING IN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	During each of the years 1963, 1964 and 1965, how many judges appointed by Canada were engaged in extra duties, e.g., presiding over boards and commissions either part time or full time?
2.	What are the names of these judges and in what province or judicial district have they jurisdiction?
3.	Is consideration being given to recruiting people from outside the judiciary for this responsibility?
Return tabled.

July 11, 1968
Questions


REVIEW PROCEDURE, EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OFFICER
Mr. Salisman: 1.	Has a review procedure been established for the employment service officer series in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and, if so (a) have any reviews been carried out to date (b) will those who have not qualified be given the reasons why they did not qualify (c) have such reviews resulted in any departmental recommendation to the Civil Service Commission for consideration (d) will those who failed be appraised for lower grade employment service officer positions (e) when will this be done (f) will those who failed be transferred or will they fill positions of a higher grade at a lower level etc. (g) what are the standards against which those being examined were assessed at the various levels (h) to what extent was past performance a factor in making selections?
2.	Has a plan been implemented of employment service officer results with respect to salary levels in order to distinguish between persons going from E.O. 1 and E.O. 2 to the E.S.O. 2 level, and persons going from the minimum and maximum of their present levels to the new levels and, if so, have veterans' preferences been taken into consideration?
3.	Is it the policy of the department to ask managers not to join staff associations?
Return tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise in connection with the delays in the answers to questions. It is not defence on the part of the government to contend that it has answered a great many questions; the number of questions answered does not begin to compare with those in the parliament at Westminster. There has been dilatoriness and worse in connection with some of these questions.
Now we are approaching, as we hope, the time of recess, I want to point out to you, sir, some of these questions to which, for reasons known to the government, answers are not being given. I am not going to read them except in the case of two or three. Question No. 587 has been on the order paper since February 10. There is no difficulty about that question whatsoever. It concerns the C.B.C. The next question is No. 1,156. This question has been on the order paper since March 24. Again it concerns the C.B.C.
Then we come to starred questions. What is the purpose of a starred question? It is simply to get an answer immediately. Yet question No. 1283 has been on the order paper since April 6. Surely this is an unnecessary delay. I am passing over many with regard to which the government might have reasons for delay, but question No. 1,457 is a simple one:
Has a request been received by the federal government, or the Atlantic Development Board, from

the government of the province of Newfoundland for additional assistance in the doubling of the size of the Baie d'Espoir power development-
Surely there is no excuse for this house waiting for two months for an answer to that question. Then there is starred question No. 1,500. This is another of the questions connected with the C.B.C., regarding which for some reason there is difficulty in the Secretary of State bringing forward even reasonably delayed answers. The question is:
Has any member of the present cabinet, during the past three years, received an honorarium or fee from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for appearances on television or radio?
That is not a difficult question. Certainly it would not take long to ascertain which of the ministers, if any, have even approached a contravention of the House of Commons Act. Then there is starred question No. 1,668. Almost a month ago I asked:
Will the government set aside a day during the centennial year, 1967, to be known as "National Indian Day"-
I have received no answer to that question. Then there is question 1,760, which was placed on the order paper on June 21. It is a starred question asked by myself:
Is the government giving consideration to enactment in the Criminal Code of guide lines respecting police interrogation of suspected wrongdoers-
And so I might go on. There have been unnecessary delays in answering these questions. I raise this point at the moment in a desire to co-operate. When oral questions are asked Your Honour often says they should be placed on the order paper and we always defer to that ruling. But the delay involved in answering some of these questions indicates that they have become mummified.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Transport. A week ago the minister declined to make public the recommendation made to him by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in respect of tolls on operations of the St. Lawrence seaway. Will the minister assure the house that no increase in tolls will be authorized during the vacation period by order in council and before this house has further opportunity to discuss the matter fully?
July 11, 1966

I ask that question in view of the fact that those of us sitting on this side of the house have, I think without exception, taken a strong stand against any increase, which will have a serious and detrimental effect on Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I also read Mr. Fraser Robertson's article-


John George Diefenbaker: What did he say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I take some exception to the allegation that I was in contempt of this house in suggesting that although a statutory date is set for the report to the government by the seaway authority, it would not be advisable to make that report public while there was still an opportunity of negotiations continuing which would lead to a joint understanding with the United States. I think this is a wholly responsible attitude on our part, and I am sure the right hon. gentleman would have taken it had he been on this side of the house.
Any change in tolls will not come into effect before the opening of navigation in 1967, and I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that no action will be taken by the government until an announcement is made in this house.
I think it is very important that an announcement be made, that the government should take whatever responsibility it is required to take, and that the house should hold the government responsible for doing so. At the same time let me point out that the right hon. gentleman was in this house, although I was not, when the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act was passed, so he knows perfectly well-and I am sure he was one of those who supported it-that that act requires the government and the seaway authority to impose a level of tolls which will amortize that investment. That is the law of Canada, and the government would be in real contempt of parliament if it defied the law. That is my interpretation at least of my responsibilities.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister answer just this one question. Will he give the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss this matter before the government makes its order, as it will be too late to discuss it afterwards?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not sure Mr. Speaker, that the government makes an order. Of course I am not a lawyer like the right hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry gentleman; however, I will assure the right hon. gentleman that the government will assume its responsibility in this matter before the house in a conscientious manner. We are answerable to the house and if what we do is not the wish of the house, a remedy is open to all hon. members under our system of responsible government.


John George Diefenbaker: That means the rates will go up.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: On a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the minister been advised by his officials that the United States government is strongly opposed to raising the tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unlike the hon. gentleman who, when he was over here, dealt with one country in the western hemisphere that way, I prefer not to say what will be the attitude of any other country during the course of negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: The hon. member for
Northumberland asked the question which I had in mind, Mr. Speaker.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any additional comments to make regarding the communique he has just tabled respecting the meeting which was held in Ottawa with the Commonwealth Caribbean countries. I wish to ask the Prime Minister in particular whether the $65 million spread over five years represents a marked increase over what was originally planned and, if so, how much? I also wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the latter part of paragraph 8 means that this is still an open-ended figure and that Canada would be prepared to give greater assistance to the Caribbean countries if the situation seemed to warrant it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The amount that is mentioned in the communique, and emphasized as such, is a minimum amount. It is also stated in the communique that if our external aid appropriations are generally increased by parliament, as we hope will be the case because it
7460	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry is the responsibility of this house, then the aid to the Commonwealth Caribbean countries will go above the minimum amount which is stated in the communique as being $65 million. We expect that the Commonwealth Caribbean countries will all share in any increase over that minimum.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, regarding another statement in which the Canadian government had indicated its willingness to work toward an effective international sugar agreement. I wish to ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance whether the idea of an international sugar agreement will now be extended not only to the Caribbean countries but to a number of other countries. The Minister of Finance will remember that two years ago I asked the government whether they would be prepared to follow the example of the United States and the United Kingdom and enter into a long term sugar agreement. At that time the price was high; now it is the lowest in a hundred years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member ask his question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is whether this is the first step toward a general international sugar agreement and, if so, when does the minister expect to bring it down?


Mitchell William Sharp: Canada has been supporting very vigorously the conclusion of an international sugar agreement, but the step that was taken at the conference with the Caribbean countries of the Commonwealth is not directly related thereto. It is a special convention to establish free trade in sugar between Canada and these Caribbean countries. This will remain regardless of any other agreements which might be negotiated subsequently.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: This is a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Minister of Finance how these trade arrangements will be implemented by parliament. Will it be done by ratification of the protocol or by the introduction of new tariff items?


Mitchell William Sharp: The method of implementing the special arrangements with regard to sugar has not been decided upon, partly because it will be necessary to go before the GATT and ask for a waiver and follow some other procedure before they can become effective.

DEBATES	July 1966
However, I expect the changes will be incorporated into the tariff.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, with respect to these trade changes. Desirable as these changes may be for the improvement of trade relations, will the minister give us an assurance that parliament will be given an opportunity to express itself? I ask this because the eastern Canadian ports are worried that the removal of restrictions may have an adverse effect on their competitive position. Can the minister tell us whether this matter will be discussed in parliament and whether these agreements will be implemented by a ratification of the protocol or by the introduction of new tariff items?


Mitchell William Sharp: The changes that have been made in the trade arrangements between the Caribbean countries of the Commonwealth and Canada have been incorporated into the protocol. So far as they require changes in the law-for example the change in the tariff on sugar-they would certainly come before parliament for approval. So far as the transshipment clause of the Commonwealth preference is concerned, I cannot speak with full authority. My colleague the Minister of National Revenue believes it is subject to regulation and it will therefore be necessary to take special measures to bring this matter before parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. members that this is now becoming a debate, and I would like to give other hon. members an opportunity to speak.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As a result of various agreements signed with the West Indies and according to the information we have had, the Canadian government has agreed to give financial assistance toward broadcasting facilities to the amount of approximately $5 million.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if his government will spend similar amounts to give French radio and television to our compatriots in western Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is too general to be accepted at this time, I believe.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is more general in Jamaica than in Canada at the present time.
July 11. 1966


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. Could he tell the house with which countries other than those in the Caribbean Canada has been attempting to negotiate a long term sugar policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the efforts we are making to promote an international sugar agreement apply to all countries of the world which produce sugar although, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, we are not engaged in any negotiations to enter into long term contracts to buy sugar.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. Does the government now propose to change the conditions as to the places of entry into Canada of goods from the Caribbean?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the qualification of shipment for Commonwealth preference, the answer was given in the protocol that was agreed between the government of Canada and the governments of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries, namely that the requirement of direct shipment is being waived and trans-shipment may be permitted.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister inform the house of any announcement by the United States government this morning to cancel defence contracts in this country?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, if I may. According to a press release from Washington the U.S. secretary of defence has stated that the United States government will cancel contracts with Canada for the production of aerial bombs because of the impact on the balance of payments of the war-
7461
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon.
member put his question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the minister whether he is aware of this press release from Washington.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, I nave not seen it. I have inquired of my colleague, the Minister of Defence Production and if it exists it has not been brought to his attention either.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Industry? Is the minister aware of any such announcement from Washington?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence has pointed out, the answer is no.


John George Diefenbaker: Everybody knows about it but the government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house whether the Canadian government has been negotiating with the United States for the sale of aerial bombs?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this would come under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Defence Production.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Then may I direct the question to the Minister of Industry and Defence Production?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I did not hear the question. I am sorry.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I will repeat it. Is the government of Canada in fact negotiating with the United States for the sale of aerial bombs?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was obliged to repeat his question twice and this gave me an opportunity to reflect on it. I would think it is not acceptable at this time. If he believes it is urgent he can debate it later.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Minister of Industry whether it is expected there will be a very large reduction in orders for war material and the like required by the United States in consequence of the difficulties which the United States is experiencing with its balance of payments. Has the minister received any such word from Washington?

7462	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question is exactly the same as one which was asked some time ago. I forget what the answer was, but it seems to me this question was asked earlier today.


John George Diefenbaker: We are approaching the end of the session. I would point out that it is no use our putting questions on the order paper and expecting them to be answered. If hon. gentlemen opposite do not wish to answer this question, that is fine. What we want to confirm is that the government knows nothing about a situation which is spoken of in Washington as being imminent and decided on.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Newspaper gossip.


Eric Alfred Winkler: My question is certainly one of national importance. Moreover, it is urgent. I want to know from the minister whether the government of Canada has been negotiating with the United States defence department for the sale of aerial bombs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member asked that question a few moments ago and, rightly or wrongly, I said he could not raise it at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: I will make one more attempt to keep within the rules and at the same time have some regard to the economic position which would be created by a cancellation of orders. Is it a fact that Canadian contracts with the United States for bomb production will be cancelled and that some defence contracts will be cancelled too because of the drain on U.S. foreign exchange? Has the minister no information on this?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I thought the right hon. gentleman was aware of the agreement we have with the United States providing for production sharing. This agreement contemplates that a rough balance in trade between the two countries will be maintained regardless of difficulties that may be experienced by either side with respect to foreign exchange. This being so, we have no reason to believe the United States intends to abrogate this agreement in any way. On the contrary, at the present time the balance is flowing or tending slightly in Canada's favour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I now ask whether the United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. 
DEBATES	July 11, 1966
McNamara, informed the Canadian government that the Canadian contract for bomb production would be cancelled and that other defence contracts would have to be cancelled because of the drain on foreign exchange. Did the minister receive such a message, or do we have to depend on the C.B.C. in Washington?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of any such message. However, I will be glad to check it and I will be glad to prove that the C.B.C. and the right hon. gentleman are wrong again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: As a
supplementary question, does the minister consider that our present adverse balance of trade with the United States of over $1 billion a year is a satisfactory situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is argumentative.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that during the past three months the cost of living has risen by a full percentage point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask his question and not make a statement.


George Harris Hees: I was just getting to my question, Mr. Speaker-does the minister consider that his program for combating inflation which he announced in his budget speech is working out satisfactorily?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not acceptable. It is of a very general nature and cannot be asked at this time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether the government intends to introduce a measure before the summer recess to combat the sharp rise in the cost of living?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No special additional measure before the summer recess, Mr. Speaker.
July 11. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	7463
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Translation]	Kincardine area, as set out in a letter from
OLD AGE SECURITY	the provincial member for Bruce?



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INCREASED PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the minister intend to make this afternoon the statement promised toward the end of last week concerning the increase in old age pensions?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: One further question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell the house whether he intends to make this statement this very week, if not today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before the beginning of the summer adjournment a statement will be made.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and concerns a letter written to the Prime Minister on May 19 by the provincial member for Bruce. Would the Prime Minister say whether he has received this letter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received this letter and I have answered it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think it is in order for an hon. member to ask whether a letter has been received. That in itself is not a question which can be asked at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for answering it.


Edison John Clayton Loney: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister consulted the Minister of Industry in an endeavour to honour a commitment of his party to the people of the


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edison John Clayton Loney: It is a very obvious question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is obviously an interesting question to the hon. member, but from the manner in which it has been asked it is impossible for the Chair to determine how urgent it is. If the hon. member feels there is urgency in the matter, perhaps it is a question that might be discussed at the time of the adjournment debate.


Edison John Clayton Loney: May I rephrase my question. May I ask the Minister of Industry what action is to be taken in reply to the text of the letter concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: I must make the same
suggestion to the hon. member. This does not appear to be an urgent matter. If the hon. member thinks it is, he will have an opportunity to ask his question and debate the subject to some extent on the adjournment motion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: To emphasise the urgency of the question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it concerns an important economic area within the Georgian Bay region. I believe it is a very proper question. It is certainly an important one so far as the minister is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I would point out that the hon. member has an opportunity to discuss this matter on the adjournment. The hon. member says no answer has been given. He will have an opportunity then to ask for and perhaps receive an answer.



REQUEST FOR REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any additional information as to when the committee on election expenses will submit its report? I understand that the Prime Minister said on April 29 that it would be available for tabling in the first week of June.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I did say that. That
July 11. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry was the information I had at the time, and I have been asking every week since. I understand that the difficulties of translation and other things which the commission have encountered are now almost overcome and that the report will be ready for presentation to the house very shortly.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Transport and arise out of section 8 of the white paper on broadcasting, wherein it is stated that the B.B.G. may be required to investigate public complaints regarding foreign or monopolistic ownership of broadcast media.
Is the minister prepared to assure the house on the eve of the adjournment that in so far as local or national domination of our media of communications is concerned, or the foreign control thereof, no licences for radio and television will be granted until parliament has had an opportunity to deal with the white paper and the recommendations made therein?
Another question, which has come to me from several sources, is whether the minister will endeavour to assist those bona fide applicants for cable T.V. in the areas which today are denied access thereto?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, under the Broadcasting Act, which was introduced into this house by the government of the right hon. gentleman, there is a provision to the effect that a licence may not be given for any broadcasting station in this country if the ownership thereof is more than 25 per cent non-Canadian. That law is being carried out, and it seems to me that until there is a change in the law it would be quite improper for the government, and certainly for a minister, arbitrarily to interfere with the carrying out of th law.
With regard to CATV, in response to a question from the hon. member for Wellington South the other day I indicated that until the law was changed the present policy with respect to applications for CATV licences will be carried out.
The present policy is that when one of these applications is received it is sent informally to the Board of Broadcast Governors,


who have one question to answer: Would the granting of this licence be apt to inhibit the development of alternate television in the area? Up to now if they have said no to that question and the application was otherwise in order, a licence has issued. If they have said yes to the question the applicants have been told that a licence will not be issued; but, if the law is changed to provide for formal hearings before the Board of Broadcast Governors, their right to reapply would in no way be prejudiced.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his very careful and complete answer, and I would now ask him this. In view of the suggestions that are made in the white paper, does he not think that until they are dealt with by the house and opportunity has been given for full discussion it would not be appropriate to issue licences in which foreign capital has a considerable interest or, indeed, newspaper chains or existing television and radio stations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think
it would be appropriate for me as one minister and not the minister primarily answerable to the house for broadcasting, to attempt to make any answer to that question. I think it would be presumtuous on my part to do so. It is obviously something which would have to be considered by the government as a whole.
I think we would have to consider very carefully whether we would set aside the law recommended to and passed by this house in the days when the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister in favour of some other policy that parliament had not approved. But I am sure my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has heard the question, and also the hon. lady the Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that we will give it all the consideration that the eminence of the right hon. gentleman's position warrants.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to cause the hon. gentleman to be presumptuous in any way, or to deal in a cavalier manner with the law as it is, or to do anything that would constitute a travesty of parliament. But I would ask him whether or not he does not think, the white paper having been introduced with such a parade and so much panoply, that it would not be evading the law in any way, should applications come before the government, if the government were to postpone a decision thereon?
July 11, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Transport that although this exchange is very interesting it is now developing into something of the nature of a debate between the two hon. gentlemen.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but in his absence possibly the parliamentary secretary or the minister in charge could take it as notice. Perhaps I might be permitted to put the question directly and qualify it later, if necessary, as to its urgency in the national interest.
Will the minister inform the house if surveys are under way at the present time with a view to opening a prairie federal park between Fir Mountain and Valmarie in the constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek, which will eliminate many acres of much needed grazing land required if Canada is to maintain cattle production to meet demands?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that it would take a considerable amount of qualifying to convince me that the question should be answered or asked now. I suggest that it be placed on the order paper or perhaps discussed this evening.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I can qualify it if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have the opportunity to do so this evening.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions I have asked the Minister of Labour whether he would discuss with the right hon. the Prime Minister the tabling of the text of a statement which, according to a telegram tabled last Friday, the Prime Minister had made to the parties concerned in the final stages of negotiations leading to the settlement of the longshoremen's strike. May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he will not discuss with the Prime Minister the tabling of the statement?
DEBATES	7465
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that, having been engaged for several hours since before nine o'clock this morning at a cabinet committee meeting, I have not had the opportunity to do so. I will do so as soon as the house rises and I shall let my hon. friend know promptly thereafter.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Minister of Public Works said on Friday that the bill which relates to this matter may be debated today. Could the minister not undertake, if I might put it to him respectfully, to see to it that the statement, if it is to be tabled, is tabled before that debate?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in my previous answer through inadvertence I said "as soon as the house rises". I meant that I would do what I indicated immediately after the question hour. The answer might then be available.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Jean Wadds (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Owing to the success of centennial promotion publicity so far undertaken in New York city, will the government not give sympathetic consideration to further centennial promotion ideas that may be proposed to encourage visitors to come to Canada from that city?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, we have been very pleased at the success of the promotion in New York city on behalf of both the centennial and Expo. The promotion campaign probably will be moved round the country and cause more visitors to come here. We are viewing with sympathy any projects which would lead people in and around the New York area to come to both Expo and the centennial. I should like to say to the hon. member that almost anything she suggests will be favourably received by this member of the government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that it appears we shall be
July 11, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry starting discussion of the government's medicare program tomorrow, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he will not ensure that an answer is given to starred question No. 1710, which appears on the order paper as of June 15, before that debate begins? Could the question not be answered during the question period tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at this question and I have a proposed answer, but I question its regularity because it is hypothetical in its nature.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister would clear up the hypothesis in his answer. I want a positive answer. The question is not hypothetical at all.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the hon. lady been asked to authorize that reproductions of the Rex Woods painting of the fathers of confederation, which is being hung in this building, shall be displayed in government buildings across Canada? If so, what decision has she reached on the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this is a question which is so urgent that it should be asked at this time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transport if he has anything further to add to his reply to the question I asked him on Friday, as he said he might.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance, though my office has communicated with the hon. lady's office, to discuss the matter with her. I shall endeavour to do so immediately after orders of the day and I hope an answer will be forthcoming quite soon.


John Angus MacLean: I have a related or supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Since this meeting with her colleague
(Mr. Fulton.]
is taking place this afternoon, may I ask the hon. lady whether full consideration has been given to making sure that the privately owned television station in Prince Edward Island which has been affiliated with the C.B.C. for ten years, providing C.B.C. programs, will have its interest properly safeguarded in whatever plans the government may have in future for the provision of C.B.C. service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is in the nature of representations, and I take it that they have been noted by the minister.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Revenue.
In view of the numerous complaints we receive, and he receives as well, about officials of the income tax department reducing the amounts on charitable receipts attached to income tax returns, is the Minister taking steps to adopt the same rate for everyone in order to put an end to those complaints and do justice to the whole population?


Mr. Speaker:: There again we have a general question; the hon. member may not put it at this time.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of documents tabled in the house today respecting the air transport agreement between Canada and the U.S.S.R. Can the minister give us any indication when the flights between Moscow and Montreal either by Canadian or Soviet air lines, will begin?


John Whitney Pickersgill: While no absolutely definite date has yet been set, it is the expectation that they could begin in October or November.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do the documents indicate which Canadian
July 11. 1966	COMMONS
air carrier will be our representative, or can the minister confirm that it will be Air Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The agreement was signed between Air Canada and Aeroflot at the same time as the general agreement.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his temporary absence I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the government made a decision with respect to Canada's position at the next general assembly of the United Nations as to the seating of the Peoples Republic of China?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.

REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN QUOTAS On the orders of the day:


Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has there been any change in the movement of grain so that the Canadian Wheat Board might consider extending the quota beyond the present ten bushel limit on wheat at most points before July 31?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the latest conversations I have had with the chairman of the board indicate that ten bushels remains the target. However, if movement has in fact been larger than was expected I am sure the board would be prepared to consider a higher quota. I will make inquiries.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: the Wheat Board is unable to open all points to a ten bushel quota are there any plans at the start of the next crop year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The supplementary
question is hypothetical.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the minister who reports to the 23033-473
DEBATES	7467
Inquiries of the Ministry house for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of his previous remarks in the house today respecting those points which would not be on a ten bushel quota, what plan does the wheat board have for equalizing the quota system?


Mitchell William Sharp: To do as much as possible to equalize quotas before July 31.



RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON USE OF ANIMALS On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Can the minister inform the house when the report of the National Research Council committee on adequate protection for animals used in scientific research is expected to be tabled?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did not know it was proposed
to table any such report.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to ask the minister whether he expects to be in a position before the house recesses to make his long-awaited announcement about the conclusion of negotiations to establish straight base lines for our fishing zones.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I can only repeat what he said in this house not too long ago, namely, that negotiations are still under way. I can also advise the hon. member that a very important meeting regarding this matter took place last week.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct an urgent

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply
question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister give sympathetic consideration to extending the early cut-off date of July 25 and also extending the present category of sponsorable relatives of Canadian citizens when those relatives wish to remain in Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I have no objection to considering the proposal, but I think it will involve more than a simple question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the Minister made his statement during the holiday season, does he not think that postponing the cut-off date to some time after the holiday might make things easier for several people?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is much the same as the one put by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz).

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,662,982,791.93, being the aggregate of-
(a)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, not otherwise provided for, except Finance Item 15 for which the proportion is three-twelfths, and Transport Item 103 and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40 for which no proportion is granted-$1,252,481,028.67;
(b)	an additional four-twelfths of the total amounts of Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40, Loans, Investments and Advances Items L75 and L80 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,299,-333.83;
(c)	an additional three-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Mines and Technical Surveys Items 15 and 70 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates-* $1,902,250.00;
(d)	an additional two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Mines and Technical Surveys Items 55 and 75, Secretary of State Item 40, Loans, Investments and Advances Items L30 and L95 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$25,681,300.00;
(e)	an additional one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Items 5 and 55, Finance Item 10, Fisheries Item 10, Justice Item 1, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 20, 25, 35, 45, 60, 80, 85, National Film Board Item 1, Northern Affairs

and National Resources Item 15 and Transport Item 5 (Schedule D) of the said Main Estimates-$16,293,-
229.17;
(f)	seven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates A for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament-$193,924,378.08;
(g)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a, Transport Items 102a and 103a (Schedule E) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$5,709,522.67;
(h)	two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Finance Item 15a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 75a, and National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council, Item 10a, (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$8,459,-333.34;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total of the amount of
Loans,	Investments	and	Advances	Item	L40a
(Schedule G) of the said Supplementary Estimates -$966,666.67;
(j)	seven-twelfths of the total of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates B for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament-$103,265,750.00;
(k)	four-twelfths of the total of the amount of
Loans,	Investments	and	Advances	Item	L32b
fSchedule H) of the said Supplementary Estimates- $50,000,000.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, picking up the threads of the debate of last Friday afternoon, we come back to the question of Canada's role and policy in the Viet Nam war. As a premise to my remarks on the situation in Viet Nam I should first like to commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his diplomatic efforts to date, particularly in the light of some of the unwarranted criticism directed at him last Friday afternoon by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
The hon. member attacked the minister for not entering with full speed into what the hon. member termed the new age of diplomacy. He was even contemptuous of the minister's efforts to work behind the scenes and use whatever influence Canada may have as constructively as possible. I am surprised that one with the experience of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam could possibly entertain the belief that world diplomacy has suddenly become some sort of mass participation sport, the players' moves being determined by the effective rhetoric of other participants.
The hon. member seems to envisage international relations as entering an era when the assembling of world opinion will serve as
July 11. 1966



the principal generative force. The hon. member is suggesting that everything be made public. Mobilize world opinion and pressure the major powers into a settlement which the hon. member and world opinion consider satisfactory. It seems to me that the hon. member is forgetting that so-called world opinion is little more than those who, by sheer audacity, seek to establish themselves as the spokesmen for the world community. The hon. member went to great pains to mention the Prime Minister of India, the junior senator from New York, and the senior senators from Montana and Arkansas. Presumably he feels that they, along with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam himself, constitute world opinion.
Moreover, the hon. member is entertaining a fancy, which it may be noted is fine as long as one is not vested with responsibility, an illusion that even if he, the junior senator from New York and the rest of "world opinion" did have valid claims, they would in any way be able to orient the foreign policy of any belligerent in this conflict, let alone the major powers concerned. Were these heralds of world opinion able to change the policy of the Soviet Union at the time of the Hungarian crisis? As I think back I wonder if they even tried. Admittedly no nation enjoys a poor press review, but nations cannot afford to compromise their own interest for the sake of those who, from a different vantage point, may not agree with them. No better example of this point can be had than the present policy and the attitude of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
It must also be noted that over-publication of diplomacy serves only to polarize positions and to make compromise that much more difficult. This the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam seemed to forget when he deprecated the efforts of the minister to work behind the scenes through the Ronning missions and other endeavours as well. If my memory serves me accurately, Mr. Chairman, the most valuable achievements in international relations occur behind closed doors where all the factors are considered and where rigid positions can be modified with proper and less embarassing bargaining.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, like other hon. members, does not have possession of all the facts in relation to the Viet Nam war. We are not in a position to weigh all the variables and to consider all the factors as only the responsible, who are intimately involved, are able to do. No member 23033-4731
Interim. Supply
of this house has access to all the information which comes to the minister, and such must be the case.
Another thing which must be understood is that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam does not have responsibility for the difficult decisions that have to be made regarding Viet Nam. For him to assume the posture of castigating so vehemently the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the President of the United States and, by implication, the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand, when he is in possession of only a fraction of the information, seems to me to be highly presumptuous.
Moreover, we must recognize that Canada as a middle power is quite limited in what she may be able to achieve. It has been demanded that Canada insist that the Geneva conference be reconvened and that the United States halt the bombing of North Vietnamese military targets. But recognizing the hon. member's oratorical gifts it would not have been surprising had he demanded that Canada should flood the world for 40 days and 40 nights if the Canadian demands were not met. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to minimize the honourable influence which we can have in the world community, but we cannot expect the Secretary of State for External Affairs or anyone else, including the Secretary General of the United Nations, to perform miracles in the present difficult international situation.
No, Mr. Chairman, I think we must understand that international politics are not some sort of world parlour game. We recognize the fact that weighty decisions can only be made by a few, and that the potential for successful diplomacy is best behind the closed door. Therefore, while we in this party do not always agree with the government and its emphasis in the Viet Nam conflict, we would not have the Secretary of State for External Affairs preaching from the rooftops or conducting his efforts in any other manner than he has already done during these last few months with respect to the realities of the Viet Nam problem.
In the light of the platitudes and hyperboles inflicted upon this chamber last Friday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I wish to take note of some of the considerations which to this point have been ignored. What has always disturbed me about the position assumed by some hon. members is the naive view that in international relations we are to consider first and foremost certain

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
moral standards and that considerations of power and self-interest are to have no place. I wish that that were true. According to these hon. members policy has to be determined by a just formula; all that is required is a gentleman's agreement and good faith on the part of all and everything will work out quite satisfactorily.
Unfortunately, however, man is not to be so easily trusted, and a nation's policy, regardless of the moral explanations given to the contrary, is based on the safeguarding of the nation's interest and the defence of its strategic position in the world power structure. We have not yet entered the era when the brotherhood of man makes any just solution viable in itself. I wish we had.
The hon. member seems to refuse to recognize the facts of geopolitics and to confront the implications of the alarming changes in the power structure of Asia. I can understand that he may say, "Is peace not worth attempting at all?" Of course it is. But the only peace we can realistically hope for is that condition wherein the aggressive power considers further expansion as more of a loss than the sacrifice of old dreams and ambitions. It is well that we remember that in Southeast Asia the expanding power is China and the containing power is the United States with its allies.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is impossible, Mr. Chairman, to view the events in Viet Nam apart from the situation in Asia as a whole and particularly the rejuvenation of China as a major world power. Surely this is the ultimate consideration here. Can the revival of a Chinese empire extending to the South China seas and perhaps farther be contained? There is no doubt that the revolutionaries under Chairman Mao differ little in aim and intent from the Ming dynasty. There are those who suggest that the west should retreat from the mainland of Asia altogether and set the line of containment at Australasia, Japan and the Philippines. In the view of this school, mainland Asia would be recognized as the Chinese sphere of influence.
Ignoring for just a moment the injustice of abandoning so many peoples whose history has been characterized by their hostility to Chinese domination, let us consider such a solution purely as it relates to strategy. Could the west successfully defend the above-mentioned areas against a China economically inoculated with the acquisition of rich new fields to the south? Such a Chinese empire

with a sophisticated nuclear delivery system, a burgeoning population demanding new food areas, would look covetously to the vast plains of Australia. The potential for economic warfare alone against Australia is frightening inasmuch as China would have control over most of the major trade routes in the area.
Another suggestion has been the possibility of a Titoist formula for Viet Nam. It is argued that considering the historical hatred of the Vietnamese people for the Chinese, it is quite probable that we would witness the evolution of a national Communist state in Viet Nam which would be able to resist the grander designs of China. Such a solution, however, does not take into account the fact that the anti-Chinese element in the North Vietnamese government is restricted to President Ho Chi-Minh and the old veterans of the party. The young Turk movement represented by such energetic figures as General Vo Nguyen Giap is quite proChinese and see their country's future as linked to that of China. Moreover, the success of the Chinese policy as formulated by Mao-Tse-Tung and Marshal Lin Piao, that is, the use of the war of national liberation, as opposed to the Soviet view, could only strengthen the position of China in the Communist movement in Viet Nam and indeed throughout Asia.
It is highly unlikely then, with the eventual emergence of the pro-Chinese movement in the North Vietnamese Communist party and with the obvious success of the Chinese formula, that a Titoist Viet Nam could exist without the limits of sovereignty being set by the Chinese. Moreover, with the removal of the United States and the absence of an Asian counter-force to Chinese power, a nationalist regime would have much difficulty in pursuing an independent line which was liable on occasion to be to the detriment of the Chinese. For the Soviet union to counter Chinese power in Southern Asia is even more impractical than the United States, for the latter is at least a Pacific power. Her borders extend deep into the Pacific and her ultimate interest in Australia makes her very deeply involved in the Asian situation. The Soviet Union on the other hand is a European power and is becoming increasingly oriented to Europe. Granted, the Soviet union is the logical power to meet Chinese expansion in the north but she does not have the geopolitical resources to counter Chinese expansion in the south.
July 11. 1966

This is not to mention the problems which would be posed for the neighbouring states should Viet Nam come under Chinese domination, subtle and indirect though it may appear. For the moment the combined forces of the neutralists under Prince Souvanna Phouma and the pro-western elements in Laos have been able to contain the advances of the Pathet Lao which has been largely ignored by their patrons in North Vietnam, who have been almost totally preoccupied with the war in the south. With a united Viet Nam under Ho Chi-Minh to what extent could the Laotian government further resist the incursions of the Pathet Lao? What about the situation in Thailand and Cambodia? Would not those countries be forced to seek accommodation with China, an accommodation which would be politically and economically advantageous to the Chinese. In fact it is not unreasonable to suggest that Prince Sihanouk has already opted for the Chinese, expecting them to have eventual control over Indochina. One must also ask whether the integrity of Malaysia and Singapore could be guaranteed and whether Indonesian General Suharto and his supporters could continue to steer that country toward truly national development.
All of this is ignoring one of the basic facts of this struggle and that is the question of United States prestige. Even were the difficulties posed by withdrawal to be overcome, it is not to be expected that the United States will follow the suggestions made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, suggestions which, it may be noted, are tantamount to complete capitulation. Already some Europeans see the struggle of conscience in the United States as evidence that that country's guarantees are not to be trusted in the long run. Free nations everywhere could no longer count on American assistance against aggression from a more powerful nation. To expect the United States to unconditionally stop the bombing and to withdraw without a like action from the North Vietnamese is highly unrealistic and quite impossible.
Chinese imperialism is no less imperialistic for being in the guise of insurgency. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is quick to accept the claims of that minority which always claims to speak for the majority. Therefore I would ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam if he would suggest that the attempted coup last October in Indonesia, in which the Chinese were deeply involved, was a true expression of Indonesian feeling?
Interim Supply
Yes, we have been warned of an impending nuclear holocaust, of greater participation from the Communist world. We have been told so often that the United States is forcing the Russians and the Chinese together, and yet Sino-Soviet relations are at a worse point now than they have ever been. The dangers of east European volunteers pose no major threat as the mobility and supply of such volunteers would be almost impossible under the circumstances.
There has been a great deal spoken of American atrocities, about women and children being bombed and maimed. Nothing has been said about the atrocities on the Viet Nam side. The same people who criticize in this regard and who do not recognize the truth in the statement might read some of the reports which contain the views of Canadian members of the international control commission team. All we need do is read the minority report to understand that.
It has been the Vietcong which has systematically attacked the civilian population, bombed city restaurants, murdered village leaders and tortured those who refused to co-operate. The hon. member talks about reform. Every time an attempt is made to provide a village with trained officials they are assassinated by the Vietcong. True economic reforms would be realized sooner if the Vietcong did not consistently sabotage Vietnamese villages and did not execute such a systematic terrorism over the civilian population. The hon. member would find that refugees from Vietcong areas, not to mention the more than one million refugees from North Vietnam who fled from Communism into South Vietnam when the Geneva agreement was established, could certainly give him a graphic picture of Vietcong atrocities.
Over the weekend I noticed an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of July 1. I believe it is worth taking note of and worth putting on the record in part at least. It reads:
Britain, Canada, the U.S.S.R., the secretary general of the UN and others, have made many efforts to bring Hanoi to the conference table. The Americans have made it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that they are willing to talk. The Chinese have released the terms of approaches the Americans have made, including token withdrawals of troops, to save face for the North Vietnamese government. All these approaches have been rejected. All would-be mediators have insisted that a necessary pre-condition of negotiation is the cessation of bombing. U Thant continues to offer this argument. The Americans discontinued bombing for six weeks and a major peace effort was made during that period. Hanoi rejected every overture. The cessation of bombing had no effect. The proposition that the

central committee, and also to embark on a workable reform program in the rural areas. This is something we are told very little about.
There have been increasing provisions by the administration for medical care, agricultural assistance, educational facilities in a country ravaged by war. The Viet Cong are relying less on their division size operations and have returned to hit and run attacks. One thing is becoming clear. The Communists cannot win the war militarily. There is only one hope for them of victory and that is for weariness to set in upon the allies in response to those who insist they should withdraw as they cannot win. Unfortunately for many of these their efforts have not been too successful. These voices which call for withdrawal are the same voices which said of Greece after the war that the Communists spoke for the majority and that their victory in Greece was inevitable.
I would say that while we do not like the developments and we do not like to talk about war the fact is that the situation in Viet Nam is beginning to change and that China is being contained. Prime Minister Sato of Japan said only last week:
It is my earnest hope that the United States will continue to persevere in its efforts toward stability and peace in Viet Nam.
He was paying tribute to the U.S. military role in Asia. The views of Prime Minister Holt of Australia, Prime Minister Tungku Abdul Rhahman of Malaysia and Prime Minister Keith Holyoake of New Zealand are all well known.
We come to this point as we consider the war in Viet Nam. This is not just a United States war as we would be led to believe by some. This is an allied effort involving the troops of South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines, and the non-combat assistance of many other countries. The nations on China's periphery are understandably concerned and are determined that Chinese expansion be contained. As Coral Belle, the well known Australian strategist, put it:
They tell us China is a long way from Australia but Japan was a long way from Australia too.
As Mr. Patrick Gordon-Walker noted when he was in Toronto at the international teach-in, and as Mr. Enoch Powell has noted since, the United States is a Pacific power which must now lead this alliance. When an Asian power structure does emerge to balance that
Interim Supply
of China, the United States can consider withdrawal from southeast Asia. That time is not now.
I should like to conclude with a word about Canada's role in this struggle. There are some who feel that Canada's position on the International Control Commission gives her a certain neutrality in the situation. There is some justice in the argument that Canada's role in the I.C.C. may be such that active military participation would be unwise and would tend to cripple any influence we might have in that body. I would agree with that. However, as a commonwealth nation historically linked to Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and as an ally of the United States, we cannot be completely neutral. The International Control Commission role does not demand this. Poland, for instance is also a member of the I.C.C. and yet that country last week offered volunteers for the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. It is in this area that I feel the government deserves some criticism. There is no reason why Canada cannot substantially increase her aid to South Viet Nam. We are contributing only about $1 million, which in this case is a trifling amount.
As the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said, United States citizens in Viet Nam are dying for you and me. Even if we cannot send troops there is no reason why we cannot increase our economic assistance. There is a tremendous need so that the reform programs in the rural areas can work and so that South Viet Nam will eventually become a peaceful, stable and prosperous nation. Surely there is no member in this house who would oppose such a development. It has been long argued that the war cannot be won by military means alone. I refer again to the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but I would be the first to agree with those remarks and I hope that the hon. member and everyone else in this house would support an effort to increase our economic assistance to that war-torn country. We hope the government will make a real attempt to correct this situation. We appreciate the diplomatic conduct of the minister, although I cannot agree that the government cannot do more than what is presently being done.
While it is necessary that we must continue to explore that diplomatic role which is uniquely ours, and while we feel that Canada should continue the liaison role she has been playing, facilitating in many ways the exchange of positions, we cannot help but feel

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply
nevertheless that Canada must remain sympathetic to the allied struggle in Viet Nam, supporting our friends and allies as they attempt to preserve the national integrity and independence of Asian nations from the indirect but very aggressive force to the north which says its foreign policy is to take part in all revolutionary wars such as those which have been recently so prevalent in many parts of the world. There is no better current example of this than Indonesia.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It would seem to me that in addition to this position which I think Canada can take through a greater and expanding role in a humanitarian contribution to the world picture, we have to face up to the fact that the only hope we have today for peace in Asia is a containment of the warlike, aggressive policies of China, even as Russia 15 years ago was contained through the effect of NATO.
This being so, and with the passing of time, I am sure that many of the critical situations which today seem to have no solution will ease up and provide an opportunity for the integrity and autonomy of nations in the eastern part of the world. This can play a very decided role in the over-all developing pattern toward the goal which we all share, which is the peaceful development of the world's resources.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I find myself at considerable variance with much of what was said by the hon. member for Red Deer. I find it somewhat peculiar that in this country where we believe in democracy, where we consider ourselves a Christian nation, where we have subscribed to the ideals and the charter of the United Nations, we should hear the leader of a political party as much as say that we should have no part in idealism, that when we consider the world of today we should consider it in the light of cold, ruthless, power politics and that is the only thing that counts. The hon. member used such arguments as: What do they think about Hungary when they talk about atrocities or taking over countries by subversion, force of arms, etc? It is no argument, I submit, when ever a question of the legality of anyone's actions is concerned, to say that the action taken in Hungary was not legal. Where does that leave us? I presume from the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer that once the Communists have done it this brings such action to an acceptable level.
The hon. member used the same argument about atrocities. I gathered from his remarks

that he is perfectly happy about atrocities. Because one side is guilty of atrocities, he seems to think this makes atrocities the sort of thing we should favour. I am sure that the conscience and the mind of every citizen in this country who pays more than lip service to those ideals by which we profess to live, and which we hope will even guide relations between states, are more than a little perturbed at the thought of the number of innocent men, women and children who are today dying or suffering because of the conflict in Viet Nam.
I believe that those who are Christians and those who say that people in other countries should be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges that we do are a little aghast at the argument of the hon. member for Red Deer that the people in that country do not count because their country is just a pawn and its people mere ciphers in a power struggle between China and the mighty United States which cannot be stopped.
Surely there is more to our world than that. Surely these people are more than ciphers who can be swatted like flies by contending giants. I for one do not subscribe to the idea that the ends justify the means, as was so vehemently exhorted by the hon. member. It does seem to me that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. It does seem to me that today, when the contending ideologies of our version of democracy and communism are in a struggle, we do nothing to help the cause of democracy by abandoning the very ideals that make our way of life so worth while for us.
I am not at all convinced that the United States, by saying that the ends justify the means, is achieving those ends which alone could justify the means, if they are not indeed acting illegally. I would like to see the argument in this house conducted along the line of those who contend that the United States is right in standing up and proving what right the United States has to be there. I have heard no one pretend that the United States has any right other than might.
I am a little concerned when we so far abandon even any pretence at legality, when we ignore the question of the means of achieving an objective and then are not even sure of the objective. This is no way for democracy to win any struggle, short or long term. It is my contention that by abondoning our ideals every new, emerging or underdeveloped country in this world that we might hope to convert to our system of democracy is going to find that we in the
July 11. 1966

western world are a bunch of hypocrites when we talk of democracy, that we in the western world do not believe in the United Nations charter which we signed and which gives each country equal rights.
There is nothing in our present attitude toward Viet Nam which can do anything but convince small nations around the world that they are meaningless as nations, that the lives of their citizens mean nothing to us, and that we do not subscribe to any of our ideals that we so proudly proclaim as being the hallmark of democracy. I do not know how we in this house can say that our objectives are to contain communism and in the same breath go along with the very type of action for which we say we hate and fear communism.
Certainly people are afraid of the communist nations because they go into a country, we say, and assist revolutionary forces to take over governments by force. But what legal means has the United States taken to get into South Viet Nam? What is the legality of its position? We have subscribed to the United Nations which we hoped would undertake peacekeeping and would be available when one country's independence was threatened by another. We know that the United Nations has been particularly successful in some ways. But instead of concentrating its efforts on building up the United Nations we find that the United States has abandoned any pretence of using the United Nations and says: We will do this because in our sole judgment it is what we must do.
One only has to review the propaganda put out by the United States to consider what they are doing to the picture of democracy as represented by the United States around the world, what they are doing to convince everyone that democracy is hypocrisy. I submit that once they have sold the world on this they have aided communism to a great extent. It is not two years ago that the United States was saying that it only had observers in South Viet Nam who were travelling with the neutralists to observe what was going on. This was the way the United States talked. There was then no mention of a South Vietnamese government and there was no pretence at that time that they had any right to send in fighting troops on one side or the other.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Gradually, as the build-up of the armed forces took place, it became impossible to refer to the vast numbers of troops as observers. Instead of gaining the support of the neutralists so as to bring about a peaceful
Interim Supply
solution in South Viet Nam and the right of the South Vietnamese to self-determination, the United States started to talk about the government of South Viet Nam and about United States troops helping that government fight North Viet Nam. Surely anyone who has read the news reports of speeches in the United States and the justification they give foi their actions must wonder at what has taken place over the last two years. There has certainly been no change in international law, no new agreement in the United Nations and no recognition of a change in status. I submit there has simply been a change in the description by the United States of its position because they feel that they can sell their policy to their own people and perhaps to the rest of the world by saying they are now coming to the aid of a recognized government in resisting armed aggression.
I thought it was going pretty far and that Premier Ky put the lid on it when he said that if an election were held now and either the Viet Cong or the neutralists won neither would be acceptable to him. The Ky regime is a puppet government which is supported by the United States, and this is the position at which it has arrived. Only two years ago the United States said they were going into Viet Nam to assist the neutralists, to pacify the country and to give the people the right to self-determination. They are now supporting a puppet government which, despite the armed forces which the United States have put at their disposal and which they themselves have, is barely able to keep order in that part of their country now occupied by United States troops. This Vietnamese government is now saying that they will not grant their people the right to self-determination and the right to choose their own government because it would not be acceptable to Premier Ky.
Whatever the people of Canada may have thought about the aims and objectives of the United States in entering the war in South Viet Nam, I hope they will have the honesty to concede that the United States has the right to choose whatever method it likes because the end justifies the means. I hope they will accept the obvious evidence that the United States can impose in Viet Nam a government of its own choice and prevent the right to self-determination in that country as part of the objective of containing Communism in southeast Asia. I suppose you have the right to kill another man if he is about to kill you but you cannot kill to increase your own chance of living if you are not threatened. However, here we are saying that it is

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
perfectly all right to kill people in great numbers because we are afraid of a strategic shift which will entail greater peril unless we continue the present policy. Anyone subscribing to that theory will not convince me he is speaking in support of democracy or of the UN charter by which we are bound.
The hon. member for Red Deer quoted many sources in his statement although he started out by saying he did not know enough about the subject to speak on it at length and that we should be guided by people with greater knowledge. I presume he quoted all these sources in support of his argument. However, I am of the opinion that the debates which have taken place among the United States senators have been of a much higher calibre than the discussions on this subject in Canada. They have been much more honest and have contained more common sense.
In the United States they speak honestly about their objectives and their right to go into Viet Nam. President Johnson is asked whether his objective is a complete and final military victory. When a voice is raised in this country questioning the position of the United States that person is immediately suspected of Communism because United States policy is conceived as one which is designed to contain communism. I for one have never been convinced that communism is the only evil in the world. I am not convinced that a South Vietnamese villager can see the difference between being bombed by a United States plane or shot down by a communist soldier. The United States is saying to these people: We are trying to save you from these nasty fellows who wish to enslave you. This will not give back to them the people who have been killed.
A ray of light came through when, about a month ago, Henry Cabot Lodge speaking on television about the military victories in Viet Nam said: "We cannot win by military victory alone." I wish that a lot of people had listened to that. He said that the difficulty is that only the communists have been helping these people since 1954, and now we have to give them something to fight for and something to vote for.
At last we are hearing a note of sanity, I thought. I am tired of the sanctimonious attitude we are taking toward a backward country which is trying to throw off its shackles and where inevitably we find that the communists are the best equipped to lead. Whenever there is a suggestion of communism, we say the communists are trying to take

over the country by force. It seems that in our enlightened view of democracy and the duty of other nations we consider that a country must put up with any government that is anti-communist because that is all in which we are interested. Do we deny those people the right to revolt against a government which has done nothing for them in 30 years? I am not speaking of democratic governments but of dictatorships which are still rampant in the world. I do not think we are advancing the cause of democracy by saying we are for any government, no matter how regressive it is, provided it is against communism. Is it not time we were in support of a government chosen by its own people? Is it not time we did away with hypocrisy and recognized that people have the right to choose the government they want? Is it not time we recognized the right of the people to revolt against a system which they dislike and to choose another?
It is a terrible thought that many of these people may turn to communism, but I think we are driving them to it because owing to our actions they are prevented from reforming their own country and throwing off the shackles of a regressive government which is kept in power by our own interests. The only requirement we have is that it be anti-communist.
I think the minister's statement regarding Canada's position in Viet Nam was the weakest I have ever heard him make. We are friends and allies of the United States and as such we have a duty to speak frankly. I should like to think that although we are a small partner we are not under their thumb. It is our duty to speak frankly and to stand up for the UN charter and for our concept of what is right and what is wrong. It is our duty to tell the United States that the unlimited use of their air power and their escalation of this war presents a danger not only to them but to us and to the entire world. Does the United States feel it can use its power to enforce its ideas in protecting the rest of the world from other dangers?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I think that Canada should lead the way and should speak very frankly to the United States. We should ask them what is going to be done about amending the United Nations charter to make it more effective so that countries will rely on it and so that we may really have some possibility of avoiding power contests throughout the remainder of our history. However, our history is likely to be
July 11, 1966

very short unless we start to pay more than lip service to that international organization. I thought that U Thant was highly respected around the world but it is obvious, when his words of caution designed to keep the war from escalating further go unheeded, that he is not very much respected.
I did not mean to go on at such length, Mr. Chairman, but I am sure that the minds and hearts of those in every section of the country must be exercised at the thought of what is going on. I am sure we are all very much concerned about exactly what are the objectives of the United States. What do they want in South Viet Nam? I am afraid that the evidence points to their wanting a government of their own choosing which will be a bulwark against communism, and that is all they are going to settle for. I object to the actions taken by people in that country who are nothing more than a swarm of flies, a nuisance, on the body politic and who now and again are a disturbance to the peace of mind of countries such as the United States and Canada.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is very fitting that we in this house have been given an opportunity before we recess to discuss what is the most urgent and dangerous question facing mankind, namely, the escalation of the tragic and barbarous war in Viet Nam. We in this party invite the government of Canada to make a radical change in its course and in its policies. The time has come, in our view, when we cannot avoid a clearcut choice. We must decide whether we stand with the Secretary General of the United Nations or with the administration of the United States. I suggest that it is just not possible, to go along with both.
I stress the word "administration" of the United States, because it is quite obvious that the best informed and wisest citizens of the United States and an increasing number of ordinary Americans support the Secretary General of the United Nations in this matter and not the actions of the administration of that country.
What are these two alternative views, Mr. Chairman? I suggest they are pretty clearcut and quite different. Everyone agrees that the conflict should be ended as soon as possible. But the Secretary General has said very recently, very emphatically and very clearly, that peace can only be achieved-and I stress the word "only", Mr. Chairman-by de-escalation, by an end to the bombing of the north, by readiness to enter into discussions with, to
Interim Supply
quote U Thant's words, "those who are actually fighting"; in other words, with the national liberation front.
The President of the United States, on the other hand, if we judge him by his actions and not by his words, has set his face against these things proposed by the Secretary General of the United Nations. He has quite evidently accepted the advice of those who believe that a military victory can be won by escalating the military involvement of the United States, by pouring in more troops and stepping up and extending the scope of bombing. These advisers to the president profess to believe in victory achieved by these methods, or in the hope that these methods will force the North Vietnamese into negotiations.
It is our view, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come for Canada to say clearly, unequivocally and officially to the government of the United States that in our view escalation should stop and the bombing should stop. Canada's policy in the past has consisted of a cautious endorsation of United States involvement in Viet Nam, with emphasis on Canada's position as a potential negotiator through her membership in the International Control Commission.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs repeated in this house on Friday that he was going to stick to this policy. He has declined either to accept the position so forcefully stated by the Prime Minister of Australia of wholehearted support for United States actions in Viet Nam, though I think he was invited to do so by a question put by a member of the official opposition. On the other hand, he has repeated his intention not to take a strong public position on any or all of the issues involved in the present conflict, and not to take a position that would be clearly and unequivocally critical of the United States administration in its escalation of the war in Viet Nam.
It is our view, Mr. Chairman, that this policy of the government has failed. Those who doubted the wisdom of United States policies in Viet Nam have unhappily been vindicated, but they have been amply vindicated. The tragic war has dragged on with thousands upon thousands of casualties and no hope of an end in sight. Rather we have the prospect of growing involvement in tragic, useless and open-ended war.
All constructive developments in international affairs have been halted and obstructed. The United States itself has been drifting

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply
more and more into the icy isolation against which one of her greatest commentators, Walter Lippmann, has warned. The military regime in Viet Nam, the preservation of which has been one of the alleged purposes of the war, has demonstrated again and again that its tenuous hold in South Viet Nam depends only upon military suppression and the growing military involvement of the forces of the United States.
The war, alas, has occasioned a growing hatred of the white race. One of the major casualties of the war has been the disregard of and contempt for the judgment of the United Nations as expressed by Secretary General U Thant.
It is not without significance that the most recent escalation by the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong took place within a few days after the Secretary General of the United Nations had emphatically called on the nations involved to seek peace by de-escalation and by ending the bombing of the north. He said that was the sole means to achieve peace.
The United States government has from time to time expressed its desire to end the war by negotiation. But, how does it believe that it is possible to escalate the intensity of attack on an opponent with one hand while holding out the olive branch with the other? I suppose it may be possible to bomb an opponent into surrender or into non-existence, but how can he be bombed into genuine negotiation? This question was asked by Professor Charles Osgoode when he appeared before the United States Senate foreign relations committee on May 25 of this year, and of course there can be no answer to the question.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Escalation, Mr. Chairman, is not a one-way street. As the United States has become more and more involved, so has North Viet Nam. There are many more North Vietnamese troops engaged in hostilities right now, as well as more United States troops.
This morning, Mr. Chairman, I read in the Toronto Globe and Mail the statement that the United States is expecting the numbers of its troops in Viet Nam to rise by next spring to 425,000. One high-ranking officer-I presume he is a United States officer-estimates that it will take 750,000 to 1 million men before the war is won. According to this informant it will take five years before the United States can move a single military unit back from Viet Nam. I wonder whether

this military informant believes that China and the U.S.S.R. will sit still during those five years when the United States will escalate its efforts, seeking to end the war by military means.
The effectiveness of the bombing is out of all proportion to its cost, both financially and psychologically. As the United States escalates the war in the hope of victory, so others are in danger of being drawn into the war in response thereto. The end, as we all know, could be a world war and an infinite human tragedy.
When I was in Washington with other Canadian parliamentary representatives a few months ago we were, as usual, entertained and treated with great generosity and friendliness by our U.S. counterparts. The question was asked at the time whether the administration's willingness to negotiate, of which we were assured, included, as Senator Robert Kennedy had suggested, willingness to indicate that the National Liberation Front would not only be included in the negotiations but might expect to have some part in an interim government that might have to be set up. The answer was given that any such proposal would amount to surrender. I would think it fairly obvious that any negotiation which did not recognize that the National Liberation Front controlled part of South Viet Nam would be asking the other side to surrender.
I have stated, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian government has consistently refused to take an unequivocal stand in respect of the war in Viet Nam and has offered as an excuse, both to those who urge direct involvement on the side of the United States and to those who have urged that Canada should take a firm stand against the further escalation and bombing in the north, the fact that we have been for many years a member of the International Control Commission and that our usefulness as a potential negotiator is recognized by both sides to the conflict.
I confess that these arguments have from time to time had considerable weight in my mind. There is, in my view, much that can be said for the contrary argument that Canada should long ago have indicated that as both parties refused to accept or to be bound by the terms of the 1954 Geneva settlement its creature, the Internationad Control Commission, served no useful purpose. However that may be, Mr. Chairman, it has now been made clear by no lesser person than the President of the United States, by his actions, indeed,
July 11. 1966

rather than by his words, that he puts little value on the possibilities of negotiation by Canadian representatives or by the International Control Commission.
As we all know, Canada sent one of its most distinguished negotiators, Mr. Chester Ronning, to Hanoi, shortly before the bombing of oil storage installations near Hanoi and Haiphong. A very few days before that escalation of bombing the Prime Minister, we understand, made clear the view of the Canadian government during a recent visit of Mr. Bundy who came, as I understand it, for the very purposes of checking on the results of Mr. Ronning's soundings in Hanoi. According to the Ottawa Citizen of June 30, in an article by Mr. Walker of the Southam News, a statement, I presume by the Department of External Affairs, was prepared for the Prime Minister to make in the house on the extension of the bombing. The statement contained these words:
I made clear-
And that is the Prime Minister speaking:
[DOT]-the view of the Canadian government that any change in the scale or pattern of hostilities could have serious implications for the efforts in which we are engaged to establish common ground on which an approach to a possible solution of the Viet Nam conflict could be built.
Oddly enough, Mr. Chairman, this paragraph prepared for delivery by the Prime Minister, presumably by the Department of External Affairs, was omitted from the Prime Minister's statement to this house.
When I put these words in a question to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, June 30, the Prime Minister replied:
I cannot confirm the precise words that have been quoted by my hon. friend as reflecting the talk I had with Mr. Bundy.
Whether these were the precise words or not the Prime Minister made it clear that he would regard any escalation, any further increase in the scale of hostilities on the part of the United States, as harmful to Canada's efforts to bring about negotiations. His words, as quoted, were: "Any escalation would have serious implications for the effort we are making."
Whether or not these precise words were used, I think it is abundantly clear that the administration of the United States totally disregarded his words and has preferred to put its faith in continued military escalation.
One of the most significant things in the remarks made on Friday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was, I take it,
Interim Supply
taken from the message that Mr. Ronning brought back from Hanoi. As I understand it, he said that the North Vietnamese are insisting, as a condition before negotiations, on one thing and one thing only. They are insisting not that the United States get out of Viet Nam, not that they stop hostilities in South Viet Nam, but that they cease the aerial bombardment of North Viet Nam, a country with which, incidentally, they are not even at war. Is this an unreasonable condition to ask, that this bombing should cease? It happens to be the condition that the Secretary General of the United Nations has asked for, as well as others to whom I shall refer in a moment.
I believe that no one in this house will want to decry the sincerity or the good faith of the efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to seek a Canadian initiative in ending the hostilities. However, I suggest that the time has come for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to recognize the facts. The facts are that these initiatives have failed because they have been rejected forthrightly and outrightly by the actions of the United States administration.
A very distinguished United States senator, William Fulbright, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, aroused considerable and natural irritation in his own country when he censured the administration's policy on Viet Nam. In a lecture at Johns Hopkins University he spoke of the danger that the United States gradually but unmistakably was giving in to the arrogance of power, which he said could lead to its downfall.
I suggest that if this is the fact it is imperative that men and women of good will throughout the world, friends of the United States, should make it clear without equivocation that they regard the course now being pursued by the United States of America in escalating the Viet Nam war as morally unjustified and as a danger to humanity.
Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, in this modem world-


Mr. Churchill:: Would the hon. member accept a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am afraid I have not too much time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We shall give you lots of time. Sometimes a breathing space is helpful. Would the hon. member care to comment on a statement reported in this morning's press attributed to Senator Robert F. Kennedy who indirectly criticized Canada for playing

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
a neutral role in the world crisis involving the United States? Senator Kennedy said:
I'd like to . . . quote Dante. "The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis preserve their neutrality."
What comment would the hon. member make with regard to that invitation to Canada to participate in escalating the war in Viet Nam?


Francis Andrew Brewin: The hon. member has rather anticipated something I was going to say. I had intended to call attention to what Senator Kennedy stated in Alberta recently, and I shall come to that later. But, if the hon. member will excuse me, I shall say this: I do think that the hon. member has perhaps misunderstood the position, because I think what Senator Kennedy was saying was that you are either for or against. I think he meant to say: Do not be neutral; the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who do not make up their minds. I do not think Senator Kennedy was saying we should be on this side or on that side; I think he was referring to the fact that we are neutral.


John George Diefenbaker: Where does that leave the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: We shall leave the Secretary of State for External Affairs to worry about his own conscience in the light of Mr. Kennedy's remarks.
But there are times when although we call ourselves realists we would be well advised to listen to those who speak for the conscience of humanity. I know that the Pope, speaking for millions of Roman Catholics around the world, has urged an end of the war by de-escalation and the acceptance of negotiations. The World Council of Churches, at a meeting of its central committee in Geneva a few weeks ago, spoke for other bodies of Christians throughout the world when it issued a statement urging certain things which I suggest are the very things we have been urging in this house:
1.	That the United States and South Viet Nam stop bombing of the north, and North Viet Nam stop military infiltration of the south;
2.	That the United States now announce its commitment to a withdrawal of its troops phased in accordance with provisions for peacekeeping machinery under international auspices and deemed adequate in the judgment of an international authority;

3.	That all parties recognize the necessity of according a place in negotiations both to the government of South Viet Nam and to the National Liberation Front.
I will leave out some of the recommendations and proceed to recommendation No. 6.
6.	That all parties recognize the extent to which what is happening in Viet Nam is part of a social revolution and that, freed from foreign intervention, Viet Nam, both north and south, ought to be in a position to determine its own future;
7.	That all parties recognize the futility of military action for the solution of underlying political, social and economic problems of Viet Nam and the necessity of massive and generous development programs;
8.	That in order to relieve present international tension the United States review and modify its policy of "containment of communism"-
I commend this to the hon. member for Red Deer. I think it would be well for him to study this statement. The recommendation continues:
-and communist countries supporting "wars of liberation" should review and modify their policy.
Throughout the world today people and governments are beginning to unite in their efforts to make it clear that the war in Viet Nam should be ended. The uncommitted countries have made their views clear. The countries of Europe are united in deploring the recent extension of the war. The time has surely come when Canada should join with the governments of India, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France to urge an end to the bombing to create conditions in which negotiation will be possible.
A universal appeal should be made to the people and to the government of the United States to heed the warnings of the Secretary General of the United Nations and of the religious spokesmen of mankind. Nobody can possibly doubt the friendliness and good will of the people of Canada and of the present government of Canada toward the United States.
At this point it would be appropriate to refer to what Senator Kennedy said the other day when he urged that Canada should speak up more clearly. It was then he made the statement to which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred about the hottest place in hell being reserved for those who in time of crisis preserve their neutrality. I suggest in all seriousness to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the time has come for the government of Canada to pronounce publicly and clearly to our United States friends words which paraphrase other famous words in history, and to say to them: "For God's sake, stop."
July 11, 1966

Interim Supply


Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief, I share, of course, with the hon. member for Greenwood and with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona concern over the implications of the extension of the bombing to the military targets adjacent to Hanoi and Haiphong. I do not think members on one side of the house are more concerned about the implications of this move than are members on the other side.
It is a concern which extends far beyond this house and it has been expressed by other governments in other countries. The consequences of the escalation, if it can be called that and not simply an extension of a military policy which has been in operation for some time, cannot be accurately predicted. However, it seems to me that in this debate an inordinate amount of emphasis has been placed upon United States foreign policy and only a passing reference, and that not very complimentary, to the distinguished efforts of the present government in the area of negotiations.
It seems to me useless as well as wrong to condemn one side in this dispute, namely, the United States, as being the sole villain in this whole sordid and tragic drama. I cannot accept the premise that the onus of responsibility for the war in Viet Nam and particularly for the continuation of the war has to be laid at the doorstep of the United States alone. I think this is wrong both historically and in terms of the contemporary situation.
The government of the United States has made more open and continuing efforts to bring about discussion or negotiations than the other side has ever done. These efforts have been supplemented by those of Great Britain including the visits by Patrick Gordon Walker and others, and the abortive effort of the Commonwealth committee on Viet Nam, and so on. These were all sincere efforts to bring the two sides together. They failed. They did not fail because the United States was unwilling to come to the conference table. They failed because representatives of the government of North Viet Nam refused to be there.
It does not seem to me to be very intelligent or fair for members in that corner of the house to place so much emphasis on the shortcomings of United States policy while glibly passing over the much greater shortcomings of the government of North Viet Nam. The United States is not the sole villain of the piece, though it may be there are shortcomings so far as its policy is concerned.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
But it seems to me that if there is one place where we can expect a balanced judgment on what is going on in this war it is here in this chamber, and we are not getting it. We did not get it from the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and we did not get it from the hon. member for Greenwood. Both those hon. members are urging the government to speak frankly. Both are urging on the government a course which it seems to me involves much more of a sort of public posturing than we want. What is described as dynamic leadership is really nothing more or less than rhetoric.
The basis for dynamic leadership today seems to be public statements, public positions, regardless of what those public statements or positions might do to the efforts which are taking place, in meetings both in this country and in other countries, to try to bring together the principals in this dispute.
Never in the study of foreign policy will you find that a position which is simply rhetorical, which is simply taken for the sake of absolving one's conscience, saying that in this dispute we are clean, has advanced the cause of peace. It may serve to satisfy one's conscience. We in this chamber have a compelling, immediate responsibility to confine our attention to what in practice, what in fact, we can contribute to a solution of this war. Our primary concern at this time must be not with our personal consciences and what we feel about the war but with what we can do here that might contribute in some small measure to resolve this tragic affair in Viet Nam.
I do not think we have had that yet. We have had high-sounding appeals for dynamic leadership which, when reduced to their essence, are simply high-sounding statements that we are on the side of the angels and the participants and principals are engaged in something of which we do not approve.
It is this dimension of the debate which I find so unpalatable, so unnecessary and, in some measure, so surprising because I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Greenwood and his judgment in this area. If you examine the pattern of international politics over a period of years one thing certainly becomes evident, that what is best, what is humane and rational in mankind does not seem to be exemplified and practised at the international level. Foreign policy is too often myopic, selfish and tendentious. There is little of what we can call altruism, the grand

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply
gesture, at the international level, and it is within this framework that we have to operate.
It is useless to involve one's self in appeals to negotiate, in appeals to principals to do something about a war of which one disapproves. Particularly is this useless if, on the other hand, you are not in a position to try to contribute to a slow attrition of the divergence in viewpoints between the two principals.
It seems that the recent escalation, if we can call it that, has set in train implications which no doubt are very serious. It has been said both by United States senators and commentators that it is going to contribute to a hardening of the attitude in North Viet Nam. That may be so and, if so, it is regrettable. It may further provoke a hardening of the attitude of Communist China and may further estrange that country from the international community. This is profoundly regrettable. An effort has been made by our Prime Minister to point out the implications of this continued estrangement.
All this may be true, and all of this is regrettable, but what is Canada's specific position in this given situation? Is it simply to stand up before the councils of the world and lament it? Is the most sensible and the most practical position we can take to stand up and lecture, particularly when over a period of years, through selfless efforts on the part of the Secretary of State for external Affairs and previous holders of that office, we have established ourselves as a country which in the past has served as an intermediary, as a country which can offer its good offices, as a country which retains the respect of both sides?
In the course of this debate the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and, in not quite the same language, the hon. member for Greenwood have accused us of committing the crime of silence, of trying to avoid our responsibilities, of trying to avoid a public statement simply because we might offend the United States. What they prefer is an unequivocal stand. That in itself is a wrong assessment, but the hon. member for Greenwood went much further. He said that the negotiations have failed.
No one would be more concerned or more aggrieved than myself and other members on this side of the chamber if this were true, but there is absolutely no evidence that the negotiations as such have failed. They may not have been successful up to this point, but at what point does one judge negotiations as

being successful or a failure? Is it not possible that it is just a shade premature to tell the government and members of the house that negotiations have failed: Is it not particularly premature for the hon. member for Greenwood to say that negotiations have failed when probably tonight the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be meeting with Mr. Polyanski? What sort of framework does that provide for these negotiations that are going on when members of this house stand up and publicly declare the negotiations have failed and lecture the United States?
Yet that is the approach taken today by one whom I have always highly regarded as an astute commentator on international politics. That is the sort of bland pronouncement he is making on an issue which concerns all of us so deeply.
The Ronning missions and the statement made by the minister the other day that he will be visiting the Soviet union are tangible, concrete evidence of a positive approach to the problem. It may not be the approach that hon. members opposite would like, but I have yet to hear a suggestion from the other side which holds out more concrete promise, not headlines but concrete promise of bringing the principals together, than the approach presently being adopted by the government and particularly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On this issue we are not concerned about headlines. We are not concerned about political points. We are concerned about only one fundamental job, to bring the principals together as quickly as possible, and if anyone in this chamber thinks peace will arrive in Viet Nam before that particular objective has been reached he is flying in the face of the facts.
These are preliminary steps. They may not be dramatic and may not satisfy the demands of hon. members opposite, but in my view they are the only practical and concrete steps which a country in our position can take at this particular juncture, and I do not see that the sort of contribution we have had from the other side of the chamber contributes one jot to the solution of the problem. I contend that a foreign policy which is constituted of public statements of a high-sounding character, appealing to the principals to meet and settle their differences, may read well at home but does nothing to find a long-term solution to the problem.
July 11, 1966



[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I would suggest that if there is going to be more opposition on the other side they might come to grips with the fundamental question. With a middle power such as Canada which enjoys membership on the International Control Commission and has had an unparalleled measure of success in contributing to solutions of international disputes, and with a Secretary of State for External Affairs-I do not say this because I am a Liberal member- who has a record of acceptability, if you like, putting it in its most undramatic terms, is it not in this area that this country can serve its most useful purpose? If it is not, then I should like to hear suggestions to the contrary from the other side. I do not think it is useful to tell us we should be making certain statements while we are attempting to negotiate. Negotiations never have been aided and abetted by such pronouncements by the third party. The third party role is an undramatic role by definition; it is a role which demands a tremendous amount of patience, perseverance, tact and imagination. It is not a role that can be built up as a role which will excite the fancies of those who read the newspapers around the country and across the world. It is an undramatic but important role.
I think what should be coming out of this debate is an assessment of the particular role which has been created by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would be very interested to hear from hon. members on the other side how this particular role may be improved and refined. I think if we had that we might have a meaningful debate in this house rather than the sort of thing we have been having up until now. My position in this matter is simply that I prefer our present role for a middle power such as ours with our record. It seems to me it is the only hopeful approach which we, this government, and in fact this country can take in trying to serve some purpose in bringing to an end what we all regard as a very tragic war.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the speech of the hon. member for Peterborough I was very interested in his constant reiterations about negotiations. He did not tell us with whom the negotiations are taking place. One can only assume he meant that our government was in the process of negotiating with the United States. If that is the case, then I am unable to understand why he still
Interim Supply
has some hope for the success of those negotiations. I would have hoped that each member of this Canadian parliament would have reacted very adversely to the treatment of the Prime Minister of Canada received at the hands of the President of the United States when he sought to place before the American people and the American government Canada's great concern about the escalation of the war. The reaction was a prompt and almost immediate escalation by the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong. How many more times do we have to be kicked in the teeth before we realize that this kind of diplomacy just is not working?
I remember some months ago speaking to a member of the United States Congress. I asked him whether he thought it would have any effect upon the policies of the United States government if the spokesmen of the Canadian government were, plainly and bluntly from their seats in the House of Commons, to express their real dismay at and opposition to the present United States policy in South Viet Nam. This congressman told me that he could not answer that question but that he could tell me something else. He said it in these words; I can tell you that the present attitude of your government in Canada is being used today by our President to beat down the opposition to his policies in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. This in effect, of course, was a suggestion that there is some effect.
I was very doubtful, Mr. Chairman, whether I would enter this debate until I heard the truly shocking speech of the hon. member for Red Deer. I found it particularly shocking, coming from someone who, shall we say, makes a very open profession of Christian principles, to find that he has become enamoured of the German pre-war theory of realpolitik which subordinates all other considerations to the advancement of the state in various parts of the world. I suppose it is hardly necessary to recite the horrors of the war in southeast Asia. The Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, already has described it in his view as the most horrible war in history. I think the words of this man should be listened to not only because he is the head of the United Nations, the Secretary General, but also because he is a native of one of the countries which we are told lies in the path of Chinese imperialism and which will fall tomorrow if the Americans stop their escalation of the war in Viet Nam. U Thant, as we know, is a Burmese.

July II, 1966
Interim Supply
I think one might be able to make out a case for acquiescing in the perpetration of these atrocities and horrors if we were able to do it in the interest of an overriding moral purpose. This always has been the apologia advanced by those promoting war. It is one I was immunized against half a century ago. I never have been able to detect any solid and enduring gains made by the world from the death and maiming of so many of my generation. It is true enough, of course, that due to the folly and dishonesty of politicians and the greed of those who have a vested interest in a certain form of economic organization, matters are sometimes allowed to reach the stage where military violence is the only course which may be open, when the dragon's teeth sown by folly, dishonesty and greed finally germinate into menacing monsters who must be destroyed if the rest of us are to survive. This in effect is what the United States is telling the world today. They are telling us that the menace of Communism is such that we must not only tolerate but support them in their indiscriminate bombing and burning of the hapless people of Viet Nam. But I suggest it is an abdication of responsibility to take anyone's word for it when we are asked to condone and support actions which fill every decent person with dismay and horror.
Just how good is the claim of the administration in Washington that it is containing Communism? How valid is the claim that Communism would otherwise expand and flow across the face of the earth? In the first place we must realize that when we speak of Communism we are dealing with an abstraction, a very vague and poorly defined abstraction, which conveys very little to us of reality and tells us next to nothing about the men and women who label themselves Communists. This is the crux of our problem with our American neighbours. They see the situation not in political, social or economic terms but in religious terms, and have convinced themselves, and seek to convince us, that what they are fighting is incarnate evil, not flesh and blood men and women. Unfortunately there are those in our own country who have become victims of this type of religious mania.
It is suggested by my hon. friend for Red Deer that the dictates of real politic compel the United States to protect their interests. Again I wonder what interest they have in south-east Asia. They may well have made out a case for their interest in the western hemisphere, but I find it difficult to believe

they can make out a case for legitimate American interest on the other side of the Pacific. In fact, sir, I have reached the conclusion it is not too exaggerated to suggest that United States policies and actions in southeast Asia can be described in clinical terms, if you like, as paranoid. We are dealing with a powerful neighbour who has gone around the bend with religious mania.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is a frightening similarity between the tissue of lies, misrepresentations and suppression of facts which have been exposed again and again by reputable United States observers-a stream of misinformation and equivocation which has come from the State Department and from the White House-and the tissue of lies and misrepresentations produced in a shameless rewriting of history which played such a sad part in the history of the Soviet Union. There is a shocking similarity to the more simple and dynamic advocacy of the great lie which was, of course, the policy of the Nazi regime.
A slowly increasing number of United States citizens are becoming aware of this situation and of the symptoms of paranoia with growing alarm. It does seem to me that we in Canada really have a responsibility which goes beyond giving the qualified support our government gives to United States actions in South Viet Nam and which carries us to the point where we should speak bluntly and plainly to our friends and to support the growing numbers of those who feel that this policy can lead only to disaster for the world.
We have heard a lot today and for many months now about Chinese expansion. Curiously enough, we are never presented with any evidence to support that suggestion.


An hon. Member:: What about Tibet?


Colin Cameron: I will speak about Tibet. Do you know anything about the McMahon border that was imposed there by the British when they took over Tibet? This was regarded as only a temporary line. China did not storm into India but moved to make a correction there. This was the position taken by the Chiang Kai-shek government before the Communist revolution. This was purely a Chinese nationalist position. Rightly or wrongly, they regarded this section of Tibet as a legitimate part of the Chinese nation.
July 11, 1966

I had the pleasure not long ago, thanks to the courtesy of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of having a long interview with one of the senior officials of his department who had recently returned from Viet Nam. I was able to ask him some questions and he gave me some very frank answers. I told him that I did not know whether he could answer one question, or that anybody could answer it, but I asked him if he would give me the benefit of his opinion. I said that we are told repeatedly that the bulk of the people of South Viet Nam support the Saigon government. I asked him what his estimate would be in this regard. He told me that I was right, that he could not give a definitive answer and that nobody else could. He said that his impression was that perhaps 10 per cent' of the population supports the Viet Nam Saigon government, that 10 per cent support the Viet Cong and that the other 80 per cent wished to God that we would get to hell out of there and leave them alone. I suspected that was the position of the people of Viet Nam. I cannot imagine that they are very worked up by ideological preferences. People who have suffered 25 years of war are not likely to be worried too much about ideological niceties.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Peterborough because he displayed what to me is a shocking ignorance of the history of southeast Asia. Apparently he has forgotten the 25 years of history since the French tried to reimpose rule on what was then known as Indochina. No one at that time ever questioned for a moment that the French were faced with anything but a domestic insurgence. True enough, it was led by the Communists, perhaps because no one else would lead them or no one else was capable of doing so. The French were finally forced into defeat at Dien Bien Phu.
Then we come to some more interesting rewriting of history which leads people to speak today in this chamber as though there were either legitimately or factually two Vietnamese nations. A reading of the history of the past 25 years shows quite clearly that there was a temporary demarcation drawn along the 17th parallel which was not to be deemed as a permanent international boundary. A part of the Geneva agreement refers to elections to be held in both sections of Viet Nam.
Then we have another piece of rewriting of history. We say: Oh, well, the South Vietnamese are not bound by any agreement
Interim Supply
because they did not sign it. Of course they did not; neither they nor the North Vietnamese had any authority to sign that agreement because at that time France was the recognized power. France signed the agreement on behalf of those people and they are bound by it just as much as the French were when they signed it.
As I say, I have not yet been able to read or hear of any single incident of Chinese expansion. It may be coming, I do not know, but there has been no example given of it as yet and there has been no example presented to the International Control Commission of the United Nations of any infiltration of Chinese troops. In fact, I think it was just this morning that a report on the radio stated that the Chinese had decided they were not going to involve themselves in the Vietnamese struggle by sending troops there. I think we have to clear our minds of these things and really deal with some facts.
To me the most dreadful feature of this whole situation is that we are now embittering relations between the Asiatic people and those of Caucasian origin probably beyond repair for a generation. I cannot think that the people of Asia are going to feel able to trust the members of our race for a very long time to come. We are told of the aims and aspirations of the United States and how it seeks to develop the country under its control or under its-I think one can only use these words-puppet government in Saigon. How very curious are the things which happen in that country. Some of you may have read the story the other day of wounded Vietnamese children who require plastic surgery. You may have perhaps read that the British were prepared to take them and treat them free in the Mclndoe institution at East Grinstead in Sussex. Other similar offers came from Switzerland and other parts of Europe. The only problem involved was the problem of transportation. The United States had transports travelling to Europe and were asked whether they would provide the transportation. President Johnson flatly refused to do so.
When I was in Europe about three or four weeks ago I came upon another incident of the carelessness and callousness of most of the world to the victims of this war. An organization has been set up to look after Vietnamese children who are orphans and whose parents have disappeared, including some who are wounded and ill. It may be interesting to those of you who shudder at

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
the word "Communism" to know that only-one country agreed to take sick Vietnamese children, those who are tubercular and have other diseases. That country is Yugoslavia. Other countries were prepared to accept surgical cases but they were not prepared to run the risk of taking children who may have Asiatic diseases. Yugoslavia was prepared to take them and has now taken some.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Our main question is, of course, as the hon. member for Peterborough suggested: What should Canada's policy be? I think there can be no question whatever, after the evidence of the results of our Prime Minister's plea, that our quiet diplomacy has failed and if we are to affect affairs in southeast Asia we must seek some other method. I think sometimes we underestimate the influence and prestige of Canada in the world. I think we underestimate our prestige in the eyes even of our neighbours in the United States. I can think of nothing that would more quickly cause the American president to at least look again at his policies than if the government of Canada were to align itself with now the majority of the other nations of the world in demanding that the United States take another look at its policies and seek some way out of this appalling impasse in which they find themselves.
To return to my hon. friend for Red Deer, I would suggest that anyone who is prepared in the interest of realpolitik to ignore the sufferings of the Vietnamese, both South and North, who have been suffering this sort of thing for 25 years and now have it intensified, surely has a very strange scale of Christian values. I may be considered perhaps as impractical, but I still think that any nation that is prepared to condone this sort of thing will eventually suffer for it, and I suggest we are suffering for it today in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of ourselves, because most of us know that our self-respect has been seriously impaired by the attitude of our government in pursuing this now fruitless policy of quiet diplomacy that affects no one, does not affect events and has merely resulted in getting a kick in the teeth which every Canadian should resent.
The Prime Minister of this country does not belong to my party, but as a Canadian I bitterly resent the fact that the American President should so ignore his advice as to almost immediately, after the advice was given that the Canadian government viewed with some misgiving any escalation of the war, escalate it. How much more savagely do

we want to be kicked in the teeth-because apparently we are kickable people who just come back and ask for more. I suggest that we stop asking for more and join the other peoples of the world in trying to drive some sense into those who devise the policies of the most powerful nation in the world, about which policies so many of their own people have so many doubts today, and among these people some of the really important intellectual and political figures of the United States are to be included.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise not to participate in the debate on the subject under discussion but to ask the government house leader if he would clarify the situation. The government is asking for four months interim supply which would give them supply until the end of October. On the other hand, in today's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day there is a motion in the name of the Minister of Public Works that this house, when it adjourns, shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, September 6. If this is so, it has a bearing on what opposition there will be to granting the supply sought. If this is a firm date to which the house will recess, I think it is unnecessary that the government have four months supply. I think three months supply would be sufficient. Would the government house leader be prepared at this point, because it will have a bearing on the debate from now until we pass interim supply, to tell us what the position is?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Perhaps I should explain, Mr. Chairman. As hon. members know, the rules of the house provide that a motion for adjournment, other than to adjourn until the next day, requires two days' notice in writing on the order paper, and a notice for extending hours of sitting requires two days' notice. Otherwise there is a right of veto in the house and any individual member who refuses unanimous consent can prevent either of those subjects being dealt with. Consequently, a week ago I placed on the order paper a notice of motion for extended sittings with a view to having it available when the house was ready to bring this part of the session to a conclusion, but we did not proceed with the motion. When it became clear that the days I had mentioned in the notice of motion had gone by I had to draft another and give notice today of another motion for extended hours of sitting.
With regard to the date for our return after the summer recess, it is our wish to do this
July 11, 1966



by agreement. We were unable to reach agreement as to the date of our return, so I put a notice of motion on the order paper reading as follows:
That, when this house adjourns at the end of the sitting of the day on which this motion is adopted, it stands adjourned until Tuesday, September 6-
The reason for the choice of Tuesday, September 6 was that this date had been mentioned at the time we assumed the house was adjourning for the summer recess, on June 30. That was the reason for that date. Agreement was not reached among the representatives of the other parties. It was an arbitrary date put into the notice of motion so that notice would appear on the order paper, and when the subject matter did come up it could be dealt with and whatever date was satisfactory could be put in. We have already gone 11 days past the anticipated date of adjournment and we have no agreement yet as to what the date of adjournment will be.
We have two other difficulties. The reason for asking for four months interim supply was that we had intended to have the house come back on September 6, deal with second reading of the Bank Act only and refer it to committee, with the hope that the committee would meet during the following three weeks and the house could adjourn in order to permit the International Labour Organization and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, both of which organizations are meeting in September, to have some use of the House of Commons at that time.
I think it would meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen if we chose another date. I still do not know when we may expect to adjourn this part of the session, but I would think that a more realistic date for reconvening is the first Monday in October, namely, October 3, rather than September 6.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: We would be prepared to conduct discussions with the leaders of the other parties on that basis right now. If we do not reach a satisfactory agreement on the point I will be asking to amend the motion when it comes before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I would hope, as the minister is in such a conciliatory mood, that he would agree to a period of three months for supply. Whether we adjourn to September 6 or October 3, three months supply would cover the situation. If we re-
Interim Supply
turned on October 3 we would have seven or eight days in which to discuss interim supply.
I would hope, therefore, that the four months for interim supply could be reduced to three. Furthermore, although I am not one to whom the government gives information in advance-


George James McIlraith: Oh, you do pretty well.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: -there have been strong rumours from well-authenticated sources that on the basis of the obvious disagreement that has taken place respecting the wage negotiations with the employees of Canadian National Railways, the disagreement being of such an extent that all three members of the commission have different views, it might very well be that the house would be called back in August should it become necessary to do so. That being so, I would ask the minister to reduce the period from four to three months. After all, interim supply for four months is rather unusual. If we come back on October 3 we will still have lots of time within which the government could bring before the house a motion for interim supply for another month. In that way we would come to a consensus now. If, as a result of a failure of negotiations with the Canadian National Railways employees, parliament might be called together by the government in order to assure the continuance of railway operations, there would be no harm done by reducing the period.
Let me say again that the calling together of Parliament on the railway question is not my suggestion but a rumour that has emanated from sources which have an unusual capacity of prophesying the future actions of the government. I am sure that the minister, with the most desirable purpose in mind of bringing about agreement, would not see any difficulty in reducing the four months period to three. Furthermore there is no disagreement on our part as to the alteration by amendment of the date for the recall of this house as suggested by the minister.


George James McIlraith: The difficulty with this
situation, Mr. Chairman, is that the discussion of the Bank Act will have to get priority in October. I think that is quite obvious to everyone. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned that the house might have to be called back in August to deal with the labour dispute. I am not prepared to agree with that proposition. I hope that it will not happen.

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply


John George Diefenbaker: That was not my proposition; it is just a rumour concerning the government's intention.


George James McIlraith: I am not prepared to rely on that rumour. If it does happen, I am quite sure that the purpose of calling back the house in August would be to meet that emergency. The house would wish its time to be available to deal with that emergency situation and not with interim supply.
The situation with regard to supply is much better at this point in the session than it has been for a good number of years. About ten departments have been dealt with in committee of supply and the final appropriation bill was passed. The study of the estimates of some eight other departments has been completed by the standing committees to which the estimates were referred this year for the first time. This is in addition to the estimates of the ten departments which have already been passed by the committee of supply.
Four other departments have been before the committee of supply, two of which have been dealt with by the committee for a short period of time. Five other departments are now before standing committees and in the process of being considered. As a matter of fact the consideration of these departments by the standing committees is almost completed. One department is being held over for a supply motion debate which will take place when necessary in the latter part of the year.
In view of the advanced stage of work on estimates I hope the right hon. gentleman will reconsider the request for four months supply. Bearing in mind also the priority we must give to the banking legislation on our return, I hope he would agree to four months supply. The supply debate could then take place in the middle of October which I think is a realistic way of approaching the business of the house. I must say this is a subject to which I have given a great deal of attention in the last two or three weeks. It seems to me this is the best way of dealing with this matter in view of all the circumstances.


Michael Starr: I wish to say a few words regarding the proposal made by the house leader a moment ago that this parliament reconvene on September 6.


George James McIlraith: You mean October 3.


Michael Starr: The original proposal was to reconvene for the purpose of considering the Bank Act and then to adjourn so as to vacate

the chamber for certain activities that are to take place here. I must say that this proposal would amount to limiting the time of debate on the Bank Act. I do not think that such a very important piece of legislation as the Bank Act should be limited to one week. Its discussion may take two weeks or it may take less, but it certainly should not be limited to a specific period of time. Consequently, in view of the circumstances and the occupation of this chamber by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, parliament should not be recalled to consider the Bank Act in such a limited time but should be allowed the time to debate this legislation when the house is convened in October.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister whether the revised version of the amendment is not to call the house back in September


George James McIlraith: No, not in the light of the developments in the last few weeks.


John George Diefenbaker: I will withdraw the
suggestion I made originally because my understanding at that time was that the house would be recalled on September 6 to make the Bank Act available for study in committee, and then adjourn. If, however, it is not the government's intention to recall the house in September regardless of the position of the Bank Act, then I will certainly not press for the removal of the four months period.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, up to now the discussion on the supply motion has been on Viet Nam. I have no intention of speaking on Viet Nam. I wish to deal with another matter having to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. However, Mr. Chairman, you might wish to discover whether there are other speakers on Viet Nam or whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs might wish to answer some of the comments that have been made on Viet Nam before I proceed with this other subject.


The Chairman:: It being six o'clock shall I rise and report progress?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: As I was explaining to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, I cannot be here tonight. If there is a discussion on Viet Nam my colleague the Minister of Industry, as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, will be here.


David Lewis: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
July 11, 1966


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My hon. friend mentioned he wished to speak on the C.B.C.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the house realizes that the minister is not in a position to reply on this occasion because he has an appointment at 6.30 with the Deputy Premier of the U.S.S.R. We should not under any circumstances keep him away from his appointment. I hope that everything will be done to expedite his journey in this regard.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Thank you very much.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business I do now leave the chair.
Progress reported.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think there is general agreement among all parties that the private members' hour should be waived today and that we return immediately to the business under discussion before six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be in agreement on just about everything today. Since it does seem that the debate on Viet Nam has come to a conclusion and that we are going to switch to another subject and since we are agreeable to postponing private members' hour, could we not agree to take an hour off for supper?


Michael Starr: No, let us carry on.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, we are in a bit of a predicament. We need the interim supply bill very badly and I would be loath to take an hour from its discussion at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We might make more progress if we were fed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to defer private members' hour for today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The house will now revert to the business interrupted a few minutes ago.

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



[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,662,982,791.93, being the aggregate of-
(a)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for
Interim Supply
the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, not otherwise provided for, except Finance Item 15 for which the proportion is three-twelfths, and Transport Item 103 and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40 for which no proportion is granted-$1,252,481,028.67;
(b)	an additional four-twelfths of the total amounts of Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40, Loans, Investments and Advances Items L75 and L80 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,299,-333.83;
(c)	an additional three-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Mines and Technical Surveys Items 15 and 70 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates- $1,902,250.00;
(d)	an additional two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Mines and Technical Surveys Items 55 and 75, Secretary of State Item 40, Loans, Investments and Advances Items L30 and L95 (Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$25,681,300.00;
(e)	an additional one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Items 5 and 55, Finance Item 10, Fisheries Item 10, Justice Item 1, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 20, 25, 35, 45, 60, 80, 85, National Film Board Item 1, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 15 and Transport Item 5 (Schedule D) of the said Main Estimates-$16,293,-229.17;
(f)	seven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates A for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament-$193,924,378.08;
(g)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a, Transport Items 102a and 103a (Schedule E) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$5,709,522.67;
(h)	two-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Finance Item 15a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 75a, and National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council, Item 10a, (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$8,459,-333.34;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total of the amount of
Loans,	Investments	and	Advances	Item	L40a
(Schedule G) of the said Supplementary Estimates -$966,666.67;
(j)	seven-twelfths of the total of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates B for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament-$103,265,750.00;
(k)	four-twelfths of the total of the amount of
Loans,	Investments	and	Advances	Item	L32b
(Schedule H) of the said Supplementary Estimates- $50,000,000.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, in view of recent occurrences affecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I feel that I should take the time of the committee for, I hope, not too long to express my views on those occurrences since this is the only opportunity I will have before the summer recess. I do so because in my opinion what has happened in

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
the C.B.C. recently is a sorry story, one that does no credit to the corporation. It requires airing before it is too late to correct the situation which is now developing in the most important single corporation, in my opinion, in Canada.
For what we are faced with at the present time, Mr. Chairman, is the resignation of 11 people as a result of this most recent development. They include Reeves Haggan, supervisor of public affairs, Douglas Leiterman, Patrick Watson, Robert Hoyt, Ken Lefolli, James Carney, Gabriel Michaelides, Beryl Fox, Larry Zolf, Stephen Patrick and David Ruskin, many of whom are recognized as being some of the most talented producers and writers with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We have also had the burial of the program "This Hour Has Seven Days", which while by no means a perfect program was without doubt the most important and most popular program produced by the corporation.
Because these events are the immediate result of what has recently happened in the C.B.C. I feel impelled to make some statements with regard to the situation. I am confident that what has happened has shocked the Canadian people. I am also confident that what has happened is an indication of such mismanagement by the corporation in its most delicate area of work that members of parliament must be concerned about the matter.
I entirely agree, Mr. Chairman, with the statement of the Secretary of State and of the broadcasting committee and with many other statements in many other places that the government ought not to interfere with the running of the C.B.C., and that parliament should not interfere with the day to day operation of the corporation. But I suggest to you that if there is a case, as in my view there is now a case, of utter mismanagement of an important situation, which I shall try to document in the few minutes I will take, then it is for parliament to discuss the matter and if necessary to take some steps in connection therewith.
I want to make clear first-I do not think I need to do so but I want to do so for the record-that I, like most members of this house, have, if you like, the most passionate feelings of support for the role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and for the contribution that that great institution

has made to the cultural and artistic development of this country, as well as its contribution to the dissemination of information and to public discussion and debate.
I also want to make clear that despite the various things I had to say in the broadcasting committee about the "Seven Days" programs which I happened to see, and I saw many of them, I did not necessarily subscribe then, nor do I necessarily subscribe now, to every segment of the program every week I saw it. There were some parts of the program which I thought were in poor taste. There were other parts of the program which other hon. ladies and gentlemen might have thought in poor taste. But that is irrelevant to the essential fact that the program "This Hour Has Seven Days" was, first, a most popular program which attracted over three million viewers, twice as many as any other program in the history not only of the corporation but of any other Canadian program.
Second, the program "This Hour Has Seven Days" had a great many aspects of imaginative, adventurous and useful presentation of fact, opinion and controversy in this country.
Third, I do not defend, nor do I feel I have to defend, all of the actions of Mr. Leiterman and his associates since their difficulties first arose. Indeed, I do not hesitate to say that despite my great admiration for Mr. Leiterman and most of his associates it is my opinion that some of the things which they said and some of the steps which they took were ill-considered and might not have been said or taken. That again is irrelevant to the basic issues. Those who, both in the press and in this committee, attempt to get away from the basic issues, which I think are clearly there, by saying that the producers acted wrongly here or acted wrongly there seem to me to be doing a disservice to the C.B.C. and to the major aspect of and the reason for the existence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, about which I shall say a few words, mainly in the language used by the white paper which was tabled by the Secretary of State.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Finally, it is not to be considered, because I am exceedingly critical of many things that management has done and the way in which it has done them, that I am condemning wholesale everybody and everything to do with top management of the C.B.C. In fact, I have always been highly impressed by the intelligence and dedication of the president, Mr. J. Alphonse Ouimet, whom I have had
July 11, 1966

the pleasure of knowing for a good many years. I do not for a moment deny the very important contribution he has made to the development of the C.B.C. in many directions.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, and these are the points of importance and relevance to the present unhappy and sordid situation in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I suggest to this committee that the evidence is absolutely clear that there was in the first instance, when Watson and LaPierre were removed from "Seven Days", admitted mismanagement, and insensitiveness in the way in which they were removed. And in what has happened in the last few days there was on the part of top management of the C.B.C., and I choose my words carefully, nothing less than vindictive, reckless behaviour, with the result that irreparable harm has been done to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, particularly to the important and delicate public affairs department, in the loss of important talent to the corporation and in the resulting widespread loss of morale throughout the creative and production personnel of the corporation. This is why there have been wholesale resignations.
I said that in the first place there was gross mismanagement in the Watson and LaPierre matter. The evidence before the broadcasting committee of parliament clearly and fully justifies my statement. There was gross mismanagement in four directions, every one of which is fully supported by the evidence which any member can read in the proceedings of the broadcasting committee.
As we were told by the president and by vice president Walker when they gave evidence for top management, the problem of "Seven Days" had been with the corporation for two years. Anybody on the broadcasting committee who had had any experience with organization found it impossible, I am sure, to understand how management of the corporation could let things slide for two years, if there were problems, without doing anything decisive about those problems.
Second, and more important, Mr. Chairman, there was an admitted breach of necessary procedures. This was admitted during the evidence before the committee and is indicated in the report of the broadcasting committee, which pointed out that there had been for more than one year an unwritten understanding between top management and the producers that no member of a production team would be fired, turfed out in any 23033-474
Interim Supply
way, without consultation with the producers or executive producers. Captain Briggs admitted to Mr. Keate that that was so, as Mr. Keate points out in his report, and Mr. Ouimet admitted in evidence before the broadcasting committee, as did Mr. Walker, that there was this breach of necessary procedure in the corporation and that top management entirely ignored the breach and refused to do anything about it.
This was not a formal matter. The line of communication which had been created between top management and the producers was not merely a formal procedure that had to be gone through step by step. It was seen, as one reads Mr. Keate's report and as one reads the report of the broadcasting committee, that a need for communication existed, and that it was of the essence of the possibility of creative people doing their job at all. Indeed, there was not merely an understanding between the producers' association and the corporation. The contracts for executive producers which were filed with the broadcasting committee made clear that such contracts contained the provision that the executive producer or the producer, as the case may be, had the responsibility for the selection of scripts and principal artists.
The line of communication to which I have alluded was not merely an understanding but was actually a requirement of the contract with, in this case Douglas Leiterman. Yet what happened? Mr. H. G. Walker himself, without speaking to Mr. Leiterman, without assuring himself that Mr. Leiterman had been consulted-this is in the evidence- jumped over Mr. Leiterman, spoke directly to Mr. Watson and told him that his contract with "Seven Days" would not again be renewed. Everyone who has dealt with this matter, and particularly Mr. Keate, has expressed regret that this breakdown in communications took place.
Without taking time to read any section of Mr. Keate's report, may I say that any hon. member can satisfy himself that he expressed regret that this had happened, as also does our committee's report.
Third, Mr. Chairman, and this perhaps is the serious part of the mismanagement of the whole affair, if management was dissatisfied with "Seven Days", if management felt that something had to be done about the content of "Seven Days", then obviously it had to discipline, if it was going to discipline anyone, those responsible for the content of "Seven Days", namely, the producers. What

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
did management do? Instead of doing anything about Mr. Leiterman or Mr. Hoyt or Mr. Lefolli or the director or anyone of those responsible for the content of "Seven Days", it fired the two hosts. Yet the evidence before the broadcasting committee was clear that every word Patrick Watson and Laurier LaPierre spoke as hosts was scripted for them. They did not write a single word. They did not say a word that was not written for them. When they were conducting their interviews, in every case they were pre-taped and were later edited by the producers. Again, those two men had no responsibility for what appeared on the screen.
When these facts were pointed out to Mr. Ouimet and to Mr. Walker, they gave different reasons for firing LaPierre and Watson. They said it was not as a result of any attempt to improve "Seven Days" at all; it was because they felt that LaPierre was not a good interviewer, because he wore his feelings on his sleeve and conducted interviews to the detriment of the person interviewed. So far as Watson was concerned, they wanted to separate him from Leiterman and that was why Watson was fired. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that never in my lifetime have I heard so weak and indefensible a defence of an action that could not otherwise be explained. If anyone was to be disciplined for "Seven Days" it should not have been Watson and LaPierre. The management which did what it did is clearly guilty of extreme imcompe-tence.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I will return to that in a moment, but I turn now to my fourth point concerning the most astonishing piece of mismanagement of all. The evidence is clear that when it was suggested to Mr. William Hogg, the director of news and public affairs, and to Mr. Hag-gan, the supervisor of public affairs, that something should be done about Watson and LaPierre they said in effect,-I am paraphrasing, but it is all in the evidence and I am paraphrasing accurately-"let us not do it now; let us wait until the season is finished or almost finished, because if we do it now it will interrupt the work, it will do harm to the program, it will create a fuss; let us wait four or five weeks until we are near the end of the season." It should be clear to a schoolboy that if top management had had the elementary common sense to wait until the season was almost over, say until May 7 or 8 instead of April 6, and then had said that in the fall the program would begin again with

whatever personnel they chose, all the fuss and bother which has occurred would never have occurred.
Surely it did not require a genius to see that the request of Mr. Hogg and Mr. Haggan that the matter be left alone for a few weeks was reasonable and sensible. But not Mr. Walker. Whether or not Mr. Ouimet or Captain Briggs were responsible for Mr. Walker acting like a bull in a china shop, as he did again the other day, I do not know. But I do know that any management which times its action so badly, which takes action against the two people who were identified in the public mind with the program but who were innocent in regard to the results of the program about which management was being critical, any management which does that shows an incompetence, indeed, a recklessness of which this parliament must take note.
It also seems clear to me as a citizen who has never had occasion except in friendship to deal with men and women of creative talent-I have had the pleasure of knowing many of them-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And dealing with them professionally.


David Lewis: Yes, I have dealt with them professionally, as counsel for ACTRA in particular.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Ah, ah. That is interesting.


David Lewis: The hon. member says that as though he did not know it. I made it clear to the broadcasting committee and I make no apologies for it either.


Rémi Paul: I just said it was interesting.


David Lewis: I am glad something I say is interesting to someone. As I say, I have known many of them and dealt with them, but I have never had occasion to direct or supervise or have that kind of association with them. But I do know it is obviously impossible to deal with creative people in an organization like the CBC, as it was suggested though not proven before the broadcasting committee that a management person had declared, the same way as you run a canning factory. The reason for the requirement of constant communication between producers and top management is not merely for formal purposes but because it is impossible to get the best out of creative people, whether they
July 11. 1966



be reporters for a newspaper or producers for a broadcasting corporation, if they are treated as mere units, if their ideas are not carefully considered and if they are not carefully consulted about their program and their work.
The objection, therefore, to Mr. Walker jumping over the shoulders of the producers to go after Watson and LaPierre in the way he did is not merely an objection, as Mr. Walker and Mr. Ouimet tried to make out, because certain formal procedure had been abridged. It is based on the fact that an important part of the work was ignored and an important way in which to make the work effective was entirely disregarded.
Everybody agreed that the "Seven Days" program should continue. Mr. Ouimet told the committee on many occasions that he wanted it to continue, but improved, cleansed, if you like. Mr. Walker emphasized that he wanted "Seven Days" to continue. Mr. Keate in his report said by implication that "Seven Days" is an important program and should not be lost. The broadcasting committee report says by implication, as I read it, that such programs as "Seven Days" ought to be on the screen this fall by asking the corporation to make sure that adventurous public affairs programming will be carried on this fall.
Indeed, the C.B.C. board of directors itself in a statement issued on May 27, 1966, which is an appendix to No. 18 of the committee's proceedings, says, as found on page 1098, that the board supported management's position with regard to Watson and LaPierre out of a deep concern for the maintenance of C.B.C. policies and to continue with the program "Seven Days".
Everybody wanted "Seven Days" to continue. But what was the result? The result is that "Seven Days" is now dead. It will not continue. And I cannot escape the suspicion that when Mr. Ouimet and Mr. Walker told us and when Mr. Ouimet told Mr. Keate, as Mr. Keate says in his report, that they wanted "Seven Days" to continue, they were talking with tongue in cheek and had no intention of letting the program continue this fall. They were playing a game with the parliamentary committee and with Mr. Keate and were being less than honest both with Mr. Keate and with us. This is a shameful thing, I suggest, for important executives of an organization like the C.B.C. to do.
May I also point out that everybody concerned agrees that Leiterman and Watson are brilliant producers. The board of directors of 23033-4741
Interim Supply
the C.B.C. in the same statement at page 1097 says:
In management's view, both Mr. Leiterman and Mr. Watson are very able and highly talented.
But these very able and highly talented men have now been forced out of the corporation. One was, in effect, fired and the other was forced to resign. The directors go on to say as found on the same page:
"Seven Days" was largely their creation and together they gave it a character and thrust which were to some extent at variance with C.B.C. policy. In an effort to overcome this management decided to separate them. It might have moved either one. After considering the alternative, it decided to leave Mr. Leiterman with "Seven Days" and to give Mr. Watson a new assignment.
This was intended at one time to be called "Quarterly Report". Whether or not it will appear in view of recent events is a different story.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Mr. Keate, at page 19 of his report, quotes President Ouimet of the C.B.C. as saying when asked, "Why did you fire Watson and LaPierre-why not Haggan and Leiterman":
We recognize that Leiterman is a brilliant producer an we believed in the show. We felt that it could be improved. When we took a firm line, the show improved and its ratings climbed steadily upwards.
This is the man, speaking to Mr. Keate as he spoke to the broadcasting committee, who is responsible for getting rid of Leiterman and forcing the resignations of Watson, and Beryl Fox who produced the show in which he said he believed.
It is the same with regard to Mr. Haggan, and I think it is important to put these things on the record. At page 17 of his report Mr. Keate, a publisher of a newspaper and a man whose writings suggest he has a highly subtle mind, says:
The C.B.C. Toronto public affairs supervisors, Hugh Gauntlett and Reeves Haggan, impressed me as highly intelligent and dedicated corporation people who felt it their duty to express their disagreement with C.B.C. policies which led to the non-renewal of Watson and LaPierre.
In so doing, they have clearly laid their jobs on the line. Mr. Haggan, in particular, has stated that it is virtually impossible for him to conduct a reasonable and intelligent conversation with his senior officer, Mr. Walker.
Without intending to be more offensive to Mr. Walker than the circumstances force upon me-I put it that way because I do not want to sound hypercritical-I have yet to read any favourable remarks about Mr. Walker's contribution in this situation. But

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply
Mr. Walker is still there, I understand at present on holidays, while Mr. Haggan, this highly intelligent and dedicated corporation person, is out. This is what has happened in the C.B.C. during the last little while.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Let him continue.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the hon. member shall have leave to continue to .speak?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rémi Paul: How much longer will you be?


David Lewis: I think if I finish my notes it will take 15 minutes. If that interferes with someone else I can return to the subject later.
I want to deal very briefly with the problem of broken communications related to the present mess that occurred only in the last few days. Instead of taking time to quote I shall simply refer hon. members to pages 10 and 23 of Mr. Keate's report. I also ask them to look at page 1096 of volume 18 of the broadcasting committee minutes and the statement of the C.B.C. board of directors. I also invite hon. members to look at the proposal which management agreed to with regard to communication. From all these they will find that without exception everyone, including the members of the broadcasting committee, underlined the fact that there had been a breakdown of communication between top management and the producers. This fact was underlined not only by Haggan, Leiter-man and Watson of the English speaking network but also by Thibault and his associates in the French speaking network. Yet what happened very recently, Mr. Chairman?
I am informed, and I am certain this is the case, that the Toronto public affairs department presented top management of the C.B.C with a memorandum containing a proposal to end the difficulties and to come to some understanding that would promote the work of the public affairs department. I am not interested whether they were right in their proposal or not, but I understand that in it the Toronto public affairs department, with the understanding or consent of the Montreal public affairs department, made concessions to management.

For example, they agreed that LaPierre should not come back as a host. They agreed that Watson be taken off the editorial board and any other agency connected with "Seven Days" which had anything to do with policy, the execution of policy and the programming of "Seven Days". They made other concessions of that sort. It does not matter whether their proposal was good or bad. I am not here to judge that. What matters is that right up until this moment Mr. Ouimet and his associates have not found it necessary to hold any discussions on this proposal with Mr. Haggan, Mr. Gauntlett, Mr. Thibault or anyone else representing the public affairs department.
Despite the admission of Mr. Ouimet that communications had broken down, despite the statement of Mr. Keate, and despite the statement of the broadcasting committee, Mr. Ouimet and his associates, Mr. Walker and Captain Briggs, continue to ignore the breakdown in communications. Even when given an opportunity to hold discussions with the people concerned to see whether or not they could arrive at some kind of solution that would retain this talent for the corporation and for the program "Seven Days," and thus improve the general morale, the breakdown in communications persists.
As is indicated in various reports, and particularly in an article by Christopher Young in last Saturday's Ottawa Citizen, Mr. Leiterman was first given until five o'clock on Friday to decide whether he would accept a proposal to renew his contract under certain conditions and, if not, whether he would head up a new "Document" series which the corporation would let him produce, but suddenly the Friday five o'clock deadline was brought forward to four o'clock on Thursday. Further, when he was given a new condition for his contract, as Mr. Young points out, and asked management whether he could have 24 hours to discuss it, management said no.
Again, all the requirements of communication were broken, undoubtedly because Mr. Ouimet and his associates, not the board of directors, it seems to me, but the top management on Bronson avenue, had decided Leiterman had to go, that "Seven Days" had to go, and they did not care what the consequences were in terms of the loss of talent to the C.B.C.
I should like to quote from the article by Christopher Young in last Saturday's Citizen:
It seems transparently clear that this elaborate trickery was designed to get rid of Leiterman without actually firing him. It was typical of head office methods throughout the dispute. Regardless of
July 11, 1966

what one may think of the "Seven Days" program or of its producers, these methods surely demonstrate to the public and to the government why the C.B.C.'s management is not trusted or respected by its working staff.
The result of all this can be summarized in the following, and I rush to my summary so as not to take more time than I said I would. First, the C.B.C. lost, and it may be that Canada will have lost, a group of talented people. No doubt there are other talented people on the staff of the C.B.C., and I have no doubt other talented people will develop and come to the C.B.C. No person, no group of people is indispensable to the C.B.C. or to any other organization, but in the meantime this group of highly talented people is lost to the C.B.C.
To what purpose? What has the corporation gained? I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman-again I choose my words carefully, even though they are strong-nothing except obviously the vindictive satisfaction of some members of top management in hitting back at those they probably hold responsible for causing them some discomfort in the last few weeks.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The second result of all this terrible behavior of top management is that the most important and most popular program of the corporation, "Seven Days", is lost. It is not to be improved as Mr. Haggan said it should be improved. At page 498, No. 8 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, Mr. Walker quoted Mr. Haggan from a memorandum prepared by the latter and presented to top management as to the ways in which he would like to improve the program "Seven Days" and Mr. Walker ended by saying he could not have said it better than Mr. Haggan put it in his memorandum. Yet Mr. Haggan will not be there to improve it, Mr. Leiterman will not be there to produce it, and the program will not be there. What will we have in its place? Some bland, unexciting and probably quite unuseful, if I may use a word less offensive than "useless", program such as some hon. members may have seen last night in place of "Compass".
As have other hon. members, Mr. Chairman, I have followed with interest the work and development of the C.B.C. I have observed it now for at least 35 years and I believe one of the major contributions of the C.B.C. always has been in the development of greater unity in Canada through the dialogue
Interim Supply
between English and French speaking Canadians. One of the major parts of this contribution was a program to be developed in 1967, our centennial year, and to be called "Quarterly Report". It was to have been a bilingual and bicultural program. Whose idea was it? According to the evidence before the committee it was the idea of Mr. Haggan and Mr. Thibault, Mr. Pat Watson and some French network producers. How was it to be produced? It was to be produced by the group which produced "Seven Days" and the group that produces "Le Sel de la Semaine" on the French network. But Mr. Haggan and Mr. Watson are gone; the "Seven Days" group is gone. I venture to say that the program "Quarterly Report" is gone despite the fact that it was to be not only one of the major contributions to the dialogue between English and French speaking Canadians but, as it were, a merging between English and French speaking parts of the country. This is but one result of the insane, vindictive behavior of the management of the C.B.C. in the last few days.
The ills of the corporation to which I refer are recognized not only by the members of the broadcasting committee. These ills of the C.B.C. were recognized, indicated and described by the Glassco commission report, by the Fowler committee report and, most important of all, by the president's own study group headed by Mr. M. A. Harrison who gave evidence before the broadcasting committee. I suggest that by implication the white paper of the Secretary of State and the government also criticizes these ills in the C.B.C. All of these things were before top management, the Glassco commission report, the Fowler committee report and the report of the president's study group, as well as the parliamentary committee report and the white paper. All these things were ignored by Mr. Ouimet, Mr. Walker and their associates.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the Secretary of State that while I agree entirely that neither parliament nor the government should interfere with the internal administration and day to day operation of the corporation, the management of the corporation is a government responsibility. The persons who head the corporation are appointed by the government. It does not matter whether it is the present government or a previous government. The government has responsibility for those who are appointed to

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
manage the corporation. I suggest that neither the Secretary of State nor the government nor the members of this committee can ignore the irreparable damage which has been done to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by those who have been entrusted with making it work and making it work for the benefit of Canadian people.
Unless steps are taken now to redress the wrong which has been done to the people of Canada by the loss of this roster of important talent to the C.B.C., and unless steps are taken now to get rid of the top management of the C.B.C. and their recriminations in dealing with the creative and production people of the corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will become, as my leader the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggested the other day, a corporation with a great number of executive people and no talent. That is the dangerous position in which the whole behavior of top management of the C.B.C. has placed the corporation.
I think it is time we ended all these illnesses in the C.B.C., the failure of communication between top management and the producers, the lack of confidence from the top to the producers and from the producers to the top, and the unhappy situation at the middle management level. All of these illnesses in the C.B.C. have been pointed out for years now, but the intelligent, durable head of the corporation, the president of the C.B.C., Mr. Ouimet, goes on ignoring these reports and remains durable to the detriment of the corporation and to the detriment of the development of Canadian talent and Canadian creativeness.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


David Lewis: Certainly.


Rémi Paul: Does the hon. member think he has helped


David Lewis: Just a moment, I cannot hear you.


Rémi Paul: Does the hon. member think he has helped find a solution for the benefit of all Canadians by what he has just said?


David Lewis: I think so. I think the Secretary of State and the government ought to take steps in respect of the president of the C.B.C.,

who is an appointee of this parliament and this government, and when I say "this government" I do not mean the one in power at the moment but the government of Canada. In my submission, Mr. Ouimet should be spoken to by the government and told, not asked any more because he has ignored suggestions, that the situation in the C.B.C. must be reviewed and that the talent which the C.B.C. has lost must be gained back in order that the purposes of the corporation for the benefit of the Canadian people may be fulfilled.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to deplore a situation which has developed in the conduct of the affairs of the C.B.C., as the hon. member who preceded me deplored a situation. I deplore it from the opposite side of the chamber and indeed perhaps the opposite side of the Canadian national political spectrum from that on which he stands. I deplore the situation of rebellion and threat of anarchy that has crept into C.B.C. operations in the past few weeks arising out of one of the most colossal displays of petulance and temperament that it ever has been our misfortune as television viewers, newspaper readers and broadcasting listeners to experience in our lifetime.
I do not for one moment defend the action of management in the events leading up to the "Seven Days" chaos. I do not defend this action of management because, although management has the unquestionable right to manage, as all of us have insisted from time to time, it does not have the right to botch and mismanage; and this is what happened in the "Seven Days" situation. Furthermore, I have little sympathy for a management that got itself into trouble by placing in positions of authority over creative people narrowminded bureaucrats who have no comprehension whatsoever of the creative mind, the creative spirit and the creative temperment.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
But having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would also say that I have no patience either with creative people who deliberately set themselves upon the path of obstructionism and rebellion for the sake of obstructionism and rebellion. And this is what happened in respect of the latest situation regarding the C.B.C. public affairs and "Seven Days" crisis.
The hon. member for York South has talked about creative people whom he has known. I have known some creative people too, and I dare say that everyone in this
July 11. 1966

chamber has known and worked with creative people in their jobs outside this chamber either prior to or since coming here. The creative spirit is a spirit that all of us admire and desire in this country. It is probably the single indispensable spirit in the world. The artist certainly makes us what we are. But there is a difference between a mature artist and an immature artist.
The producers of the C.B.C. "Seven Days" unit and other producers from the public affairs area have enjoyed considerable public sympathy in the past few weeks, both at the outset of their dispute and subsequent to the height of the "Seven Days" crisis. They enjoyed a sympathy which was generated in their behalf because of the C.B.C. management's aptitude for ineptitude in the business of managing a broadcasting operation. But I have no hesitation in suggesting that such individuals as Messrs. Leiterman and Watson, Miss Beryl Fox, and the rest in that group of eight or nine, dissipated all the good will they had acquired, by their petulant, precipitous outbursts of last week when they all resigned.
Someone has said that the difference between an immature man and a mature man is that an immature man wants to die for a cause while a mature man wants to live for one. This proverb best expresses, in my view, the thing that is wrong with the temperamental rebels of C.B.C. public affairs who are pouting on the sidelines voluntarily this week.
The problems of the C.B.C. are problems that go a great deal deeper than those that revealed themselves in the "Seven Days" crisis. As the Secretary of State said, the "Seven Days" situation was just the tip of an iceberg. The iceberg, I suggest, is far more serious than many Canadians imagine. The biggest thing wrong in the C.B.C., in my view, is that irresponsible producers have been allowed their heads too long by a management that is either blind or hamstrung by politics.
The hon. member for York South said that Messrs. Watson, Leiterman, et al are brilliant producers, and he quoted many references which used that term. I think I need hardly remind the erudite member for York South that brilliance is no excuse or justification for immaturity and irresponsibility. At the least these producers have only been guilty of irresponsibility and immaturity. At the worst they have been guilty of the insidious spread of destructive propaganda.
Interim. Supply
The hon. member for York South quoted editor Christopher Young of the Ottawa Citizen to buttress his argument in defence of the C.B.C. producers. I suggest that editor is a rather questionable oracle and a questionable source. Mr. Young has never made any secret of his own political philosophies. They do not run perhaps as far to the left of the spectrum as those of the hon. member for York South, but certainly they run substantially to the left of the position that I and several other members of the broadcasting committee hold. The hon. member quoted from the Ottawa Citizen and Mr. Christopher Young so perhaps I can be permitted the indulgence of the committee to quote from an oracle which I think in this context is considerably more authoritative. I refer to the Winnipeg Free Press.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Oh, oh.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I agree with the sentiments inadvertently expressed by the Secretary of State. She is doubtless aware that the Winnipeg Fress Press and I do not always see eye to eye, although we both stand for Winnipeg and what can be good and great about Winnipeg. I suggest, however, that in this context the Winnipeg Free Press is a substantially reliable authority precisely because its political philosophy is inclined to the left of that philosophy to which I and some of my colleagues on the broadcasting committee adhere. I refer to the stand we took in respect of management's rights in this situation.


David Lewis: The same position as Christopher Young took.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: The hon. member for York South suggests that it is the same position as that which Christopher Young took. I doubt if the positions are precisely the same, but I will accept the hon. member's remarks because I think he will find this editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press of July 5 instructive and provocative. The editorial under the heading "C.B.C. News" reads as follows:
Recently, at the centre of a bitter C.B.C. dispute, the question of editorializing by the corporation's hired hands became an issue. That is, as distinct from the hands the corporation is bound to hire to do some editorializing in their own behalf, as professional commentators.
How long must we wait before the C.B.C. restores its new broadcasts to news reporting and leaves the comment to the outsiders it invites to take the air?
In reporting on the difficulties faced by Mr. Wilson with respect to his support of U.S. policy in Viet Nam, Mr. Michael Maclear in London but formerly of the Far East, betrays the gift of sight and

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
dwells on the inner intentions of the Red Chinese. According to the stand taken by the CJ3.C. executives, the C.B.C. and its staff have no such insights and ought not to have. The job of a reporter, even a C.B.C. reporter, is to report.
Mr. James M. Minifie from Washington, puts more editorial opinion into his tone of voice than any other C.B.C. reporter, but he excelled himself as the filterer of meaning when he reported that the National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. "representing 41 million members" of its constituent churches, had called upon ministers to protest the Hanoi bombings.
The National Council of Churches does not in fact "represent" anything. It is an ecclesiastical body that exists for certain practical purposes in the areas of consultation and co-operation. Its opinions mean no more than that they are the opinions of the people who expressed them. Yet the import given by Mr. Minifie to their resolution was that 41 million American churchmen had joined the hue and cry against the bombing of oil depots and other military targets in North Viet Nam. The impression spread abroad in Canada, that the American people are increasingly hostile to the U.S. commitment in Viet Nam and to the way it is being carried out, is due in considerable part to people like Mr. Minifie of the C.B.C. and to the slanted choice of Canadian and American commentators who seem to represent almost constant hostility to the U.S. position in Asia.
The C.B.C. was once a reliable and unbiased reporter. That cannot any longer be said of it and it is time the matter got the attention of whatever vice presidents have any mind left for their jobs.
The hon. member for York South will now perhaps appreciate the implication of my suggestion that this is a provocative report considered in the context of that journalistic oracle from which it came. I doubt that even Mr. Young of the Ottawa Citizen has ever taken that honest, conscientious, introspective and objective a view of the malaise-if I may borrow that term again from the report of the broadcasting committee; and I refer to the true malaise-that affects the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and through it the moral fibre and fabric of this country.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I suggest that over the past few years a cant has been allowed to develop in C.B.C. public expressions and articulations that is damaging and dangerous to this country, and the very reputation of the C.B.C. is at stake. I cite once again the editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press to which I have just referred. I have heard quite frequent references in discussions with journalists whom I know, and with some of whom I have worked in the past, on this particular subject of C.B.C. news, news reputation and news integrity. There is no question in the minds of some of them that the manner in which C.B.C. public affairs programming, programs like "Seven

Days" and certain interviews have been conducted has been damaging and detrimental not only to C.B.C. news but to the news profession in general.
I do not think anyone in this chamber can deny that in certain instances public affairs interviews on C.B.C., particularly on "Seven Days", have been little more than exercises in verbal assault and battery and bludgeoning of the interviewed subject. In consequence, a number of young reporters-and I have spoken to some of them of tender years-men and women of conscience, who were trying to learn their trade, have come to the conclusion that this is the way interviews should be conducted-that this is the way one goes about getting the facts of a story. Anyone who has had any passing acquaintance at all with the profession of journalism knows that this is arrant nonsense and, worse, it is destructive nonsense.
I think the very integrity of C.B.C. news is at stake in this issue. I know there are certain legitimate newsmen in the C.B.C. who are very concerned with the deleterious effect that C.B.C. public affairs programming in the interview field has had on their work and professional reputations in this country and the United States.
The reputation of the C.B.C. as an international broadcasting operation, and more than that, as a news-gathering operation, was once one of the highest to which anyone could aspire in that field in the world. I do not think anyone would deny that in our lifetimes the C.B.C. developed a reputation and a name beyond reproach in the field of public affairs, news interviews, general broadcasting operations and the general field of story coverage. I suggest that this reputation, this stature, is now facing considerable threat and is in danger as a consequence of some of the techniques which have been allowed to develop, which have been allowed to come to fruition by weak management or hamstrung management in the C.B.C., and which have been expressed and articulated through this production group which was at the root and core of the "Seven Days" crisis this spring.
So what there is wrong with the C.B.C. basically, in my view, is a loose rein in management's hand. I suggest that the country will be better, that the reputation of the C.B.C. will be better, that the news fraternity and the journalistic and broadcasting professions in general in this country will be better, and everyone will be happier, if the eight producers who resigned last week from the
July 11, 1966

C.B.C. are allowed to remain resigned, and il the C.B.C. gets on with the job by delegating production responsibility for those disputed programs to other production centres and units in Winnipeg, Halifax and Vancouver if need be.
I think the opportunity is at hand to strike at the heart and the root of the C.B.C. problem, and if we attempt to exercise it now the C.B.C. will be restored within a very short period of time to the stature and level of estimation it has always enjoyed. I suggest that this is the course that members of this house and the broadcasting committee in general should take in the weeks ahead. The browbeating, the petulant rebellion, the immaturity has gone far enough. At this point, although I have attempted in my services on the broadcasting committee to remain objective-and I do not think I am the only member of that committee or the house making this confession-as far as the C.B.C. producers of the "Seven Days" unit are concerned, I say goodbye and good riddance.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will of necessity be very brief. I am rather surprised, as a matter of fact, that so late in the session we should be discussing, in a period of time as important as interim supply, the problems that' have confronted C.B.C. not only for the last few months but, as the previous speaker mentioned, for the last couple of years. I would have thought that in view of the report brought down by the broadcasting committee, in view of the Keate report, in view of the White Paper and in view of the report tabled by C.B.C. management, we would have exhausted the subject of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in general and "This Hour has Seven Days" in particular.
Reference was made earlier to the political leanings of the hon. member for York South as opposed to the political leanings of the hon. member for Winnipeg South, and I wonder just where I stand when I say-and I hope someone does not say "on the fence" -that I agree with both hon. gentlemen in their appraisal of what has happened in the C.B.C. First of all, very early in the committee meetings-and there were 22 or 23 of them-I expressed the opinion, in examination I believe of the president, Mr. Ouimet, that I was rather surprised that management had waited so long to manage. I expressed the opinion and the dismay that Mr. Ouimet had
2303.3-475
Interim Supply
waited so long to rectify what must have been for management an intolerable situation.
I think it was obvious to all of us who sat on that particular committee that management was incapable of managing. I think this was well documented in the 22 or 23 sessions we had and in the reports that have now been printed and are public knowledge. When I heard the president of C.B.C., or some of his vice presidents, talk about up the line and down the line, it brought back pleasant memories of the days I worked with Canadian National Railways, and it seemed to me that somewhere between top management and the producers the up the line and down the line ceased to function; in fact, there seemed to be a strong case that could be made for derailment.
In this respect I share the opinion of the hon. member for York South in his criticism of management, and I very strongly share the opinion of the hon. member who has just finished speaking, that these young, articulate, brilliant producers took full advantage of the chaos that existed within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I expressed the doubt early in the committee meetings, as a result of my questioning of Mr. Watson, that "This Hour has Seven Days" could properly be considered as falling under the department of public affairs.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
As I said, the success of "This Hour Has Seven Days" is that it succeeded in arriving at a formula which was partly news, partly entertainment, partly sensationalism and a great deal of bias. The bias has worried me ever since I first became an ardent fan of this program. I have expressed on several occasions sympathy toward the abolitionists' cause in the recent debate on the death penalty, and I thought this program showed a definite bias toward abolition which was unfair to those viewers who were entitled to exposure to the other side of the question,- and indeed there was another side to it.
I felt a little concerned about the definite bias shown in the Viet Nam problem. Although I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity as a member of parliament to be exposed to both sides of this problem, I often wondered what happened to the hundreds of thousand of viewers who looked on "This Hour Has Seven Days" as gospel truth and who were unable, not necessarily because of lack of education but because of lack of opportunity, to be made aware of the fact that there were two sides to

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
most controversies that "This Hour Has Seven Days" exposed from Sunday to Sunday.
Despite its imperfections and its bias, I was a great fan of this program and feel it should remain on the C.B.C. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it was well explained, well documented and well established; that this program, vital, interesting and exciting as it was, was going through a period of trial and error and that modifications would have to be made if the program were to continue. I feel these modifications would have to be outlined, introduced, implemented and enforced by management and nobody else. The guidelines for this type of program should not be outlined by the producers but should fall within the general policy of the C.B.C.
The C.B.C. is an organization of which all Canadians should be proud. I think in the main it is a wonderful example of responsible televising and responsible radio broadcasting. Programs such as "This Hour Has Seven Days" have a definite place in Canadian television, but I share the opinion of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, that management must manage. The C.B.C. management has demonstrated its inability, ever since this program has come on the air, to control these articulate, eloquent and, if you wish to call them so, creative young producers who have had control of "This Hour Has Seven Days".
There is a malaise in the C.B.C. So far two speakers have emphasized the background of this problem. I share the opinion expressed by the hon. member for York South that the C.B.C. management is inept and should be straightened out and that steps should be taken-and indeed this is the government's responsibility-to see that the C.B.C. is properly administered. This can be done without violating the written rule of the House of Commons that we should in no way interfere with the internal management or dictate the policies of the C.B.C.
However, I think, Mr. Chairman, that the producers have had their day in court and that they realized the good will they had generated not only in the committee but among the public. Had they realized they had exposed the general malaise in the C.B.C., which was broader than that which affected their own program, and had they been satisfied to leave it there, chances are that this program could have been produced in the fall and that the majority of men on that program would have taken part in it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the report which was recently tabled was slightly biased, not in the remarks it included but in those it excluded. I do not intend to get into a debate on that subject except to say that on one occasion some remarks which I thought should have been included and which would have created a little more balance in the report were unfortunately removed, quite legally, at the next meeting which, unfortunately, I was unable to attend. Events since that time have proven my point and I do not intend to belabour it.
I might say, in concluding my remarks, that I feel very sorry about the departure of Reeves Haggan. This man was a stranger to me when he first appeared before the committee, and he is still a stranger to me. I had never met him before and I have never met him since, but he struck me as a man dedicated to his job. He sided with his producers, he had the courage of his convictions and he resented top management's interference in this program. He was hampered by a lack of direction from a very wishy-washy board of directors and general manager. I do not think either C.B.C. or Canada can afford to lose the services of Reeves Haggan.
His plans for a program known as "Quarterly Report" which was to appear this coming season are badly needed as we approach confederation. It was to be a joint program that would have, perhaps for the first time, managed to show all Canadians that the cultures of the two founding races complement each other. This program would have been different, one in which the English Canadians would have been proud to participate and which the French Canadians would have enjoyed, because it would have shown them the best of another culture with which many people are unfamiliar. Should this particular type of program be a victim of this trouble and malaise within the C.B.C.? I am sorry if this is so, and I would appeal to the minister and to the present management of the C.B.C. that even if "This Hour Has Seven Days" does die, as certain pessimist's feel it will-though I am not of that opinion,-then every effort should be made to produce the program "Quarterly Report".
I consider that one of the weaknesses of the C.B.C., despite its size, its almost unlimited funds, its freedom and structure, is that it has not been a strong and dominant force of unity in this country. It has not been either a
July 11, 1966

force of unity or disunity: It has been neutral. Reeves Haggan and Mr. Thibault realized this fact and secured a mandate from management to do something about it.
That was one of the few bright periods in the 22 or 23 meetings we held with the C.B.C. management and producers. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South I should like to say I hope this chapter in Canadian broadcasting history will not be repeated. I sense the Canadian people are fed up with the subject. Indeed I and most hon. members in the house are tired of it. I am surprised this subject has come up because I do not think it is urgent and I do not even think it is any longer important.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should also
like to refer to the interim supply we are being asked to vote today, but I want to deal with a few different matters which also come under the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh).
There is a problem


Mr. Johnston:: If the hon. member for Lapointe wishes to speak on another subject, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether I might be allowed to speak prior to his remarks?


Maurice Rinfret: Would the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) yield the floor to the member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) who has wanted to deal with the subject under discussion since early this afternoon?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to allowing the member for Okanagan-Revelstoke to speak on the same subject, but I do not want this to become a precedent, because if I let everybody speak for three days on end about the C.B.C., when my turn comes, I shall have no opportunity at all to deal with matters which might interest me on interim supply. Since the member for Okanagan-Revelstoke is anxious to speak about the C.B.C., I do not mind yielding the floor to him for the time being, but I hope that afterwards you will allow me to proceed with my remarks.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest to the comments which have been made about the 23033-4751
Interim Supply
C.B.C. I too would question the raising of this topic at all at this time. I was one member of the broadcasting committee who questioned even the wisdom of rushing as we did to issue a report, when it seemed to me that we had already served the function that was asked of us, so far as the "Seven Days" controversy was concerned, of being a sounding board and a place to air the opinions of both sides on the particular matter.
The haste with which the report was assembled had something to do with this lack of balance to which reference has already been made in debate. It is also incidentally one more objection to the holding of committee meetings while the house is in session, because the fluctuations in the attendance of members on that committee as it drew up its final report were great, and the report as finally presented to the house was not the sort of report it might have been had the entire committee sat throughout its preparation.
I was interested indeed to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South, and I congratulate him for providing in this afternoon's sitting a balance to the political spectrum that for far too long during the committee sittings was missing in the questioning of witnesses before the committee. Better late than never; and I think the hon. member in his remarks this afternoon has gone a long way toward correcting the balance.
In the opening remarks of the hon. member for York South I think we heard perhaps an unparallelled example of a plea for power to be handed out without control. This was the factor that was crucial to the entire discussion before the committee on the subject of "Seven Days", namely who was actually in charge, and what was the nature of the power that lies in modern communications, particularly in television?
I think a situation has been growing where the people who are actually working in the medium, the producers, have realized that they have been given power, and that the top management of the C.B.C., which has failed in the past to realize the power they have been handing out to the producers, has come only gradually to a realization of the immense amount of power it has distributed to the producers to shape Canadian public opinion.
In spite of all the professions of the hon. member for York South that he was striving for complete accuracy, a measure of the accuracy of his remarks can be found by

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
observing his use of the word "fired" over and over again in his remarks. I think without exception that every time he used that word, it was not quite the fact in the particular case about which he was speaking.
I do not intend to air at any great length the pros and cons of the program or of the dispute. I too enjoyed the program on most occasions when I saw it. I was however very concerned on several occasions about the direction that it was taking and about the dangers of what seemed to me to be a lack of control somewhere along the line, whether by middle management or top management. The program did not always seem to be under control.
I mention this because I was the first member to raise in this house the question of the hour-long documentary on the drug "L.S.D.", which eventually resulted in a statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and some concern being expressed by the government over the dangers of this particular drug and its use among young Canadians. This to me was the best example of a program that lacked balance, in a situation where it is questionable whether even balance would be desirable in a program of that nature. Even after it was programmed on the English network the French network made further contributions along the same line which did nothing to solve the problem created by this drug in Canada. In fact, it probably aggravated the situation.
Always with public broadcasting we have the paradox that the taxpayers are asked to contribute to something of which they might not approve, which is a most delicate situation to be in. I do not accept the argument that creative talent can never be restrained, that somehow it must be allowed to run with absolute freedom. It seems to me that control is essential, particularly in public broadcasting. If the creative talent object to the very slight control that is placed upon them, then they have the opportunity to try elsewhere. But as long as they work with a public broadcasting corporation they are, in a sense, obligated to follow the lines that have been laid down for them.
The hon. member for York South referred to the long, long time during which the situation was allowed to develop. He found it a strange example and thought it might be the result of mismanagement. It seems to me that if anything the C.B.C. was too lenient, as evidenced by its lack of control over this particular program.

I have no brief at all for the measures that they ultimately took to bring the program into line. I think that they have acted foolishly, and on occasion weakly, in attempting to do something about the situation. But if the public is to be asked to finance broadcasting, at considerable public expense then we must have people in the corporation who can exercise some control, and we must expect them to exercise that control in the interest of the public.
I doubt whether any good would be done now by attempting to bring the program back. It is said that one never bathes in the same stream twice, and I think it would be an exercise in frustration to attempt another year to revive the program "This Hour Has Seven Days". We may be saddened by the fact that it has gone. However, if the government now acts with dispatch and insists that the C.B.C., not parliament, members of parliament or the broadcasting committee, has control over programming and if it exercises that control to produce programs of the sort that the Canadian public would expect, then I think that perhaps some good has come from the controversy.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Ti-miskaming.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am advised that the hon. member for Lapointe was about to speak but deferred to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I will see the hon. member for Timiskaming later.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak about a matter also under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State and I shall conclude my remarks with a statement of our views on the current dispute within the C.B.C.
I should like, today, to bring up a question of primary concern for the civic authorities of the city of Quebec. It is the matter of a detailed model of the Old City of Quebec which was made, carved and designed between the years 1806 and 1811 by a gifted engineer Mr. Jean-Baptiste DuBerger, including all the fortifications of the Citadel of Quebec, the very fortifications designed for the military defence of Canada when the Americans tried to invade the country in
July 11, 1966

1812. As I was saying, this model was prepared by Mr. Jean-Baptiste DuBerger, including all the fortifications of the Citadel of Quebec, the very fortifications designed for the military defence of Canada when the Americans tried to invade the country in 1812. As I was saying, this model was prepared by Mr. Jean-Baptiste DuBerger on the orders of Col. By, who is well known in Ottawa and who, in fact, is the engineer who built the Rideau Canal.
It so happens that this model is now in the Museum in Ottawa; it is owned by the federal government and it is on view' in the Museum in Ottawa. But the authorities of the city of Quebec would like the federal government to show this model of Old Quebec produced by Jean-Baptiste DuBerger in the city of Quebec itself; this would be helpful in many ways: from the historical viewpoint, from the tourist viewpoint and it would also be helpful to the engineers, the architects and the town planners of the city of Quebec for the urban renewal operations of Old Quebec. The engineers would be most interested in having it to renovate one of the oldest cities on the North American continent, the city of Quebec. On that question, the mayor of Quebec, Mr. Gilles Lamontagne, wrote to the Prime Minister on March 1, 1966 the following letter:
Mr. Prime Minister
Some years ago, the municipal council of the city of Quebec officially asked to have returned the celebrated DuBerger model.
You are undoubtedly aware of the value of this work and it would be logical for your government to agree to its return to the city of Quebec where it would be most useful not only from a tourist viewpoint but also for the renovation operations of Old Quebec. Furthermore, should your government agree, it would be more logical to return this model to the city of Quebec rather than to the government of the province of Quebec, as suggested to us by the Historical Monuments Commission in a letter, copy of which is attached.
I trust, Mr. Prime Minister, that this matter will receive your immediate attention.
Please accept my highest regards.
Gilles Lamontagne Mayor of Quebec
On March 11, 1966, the Prime Minister replied as follows:
Mr. Mayor,
I duly received your letter of March 1 informing me that Quebec City is interested in obtaining the "DuBerger" model.
I asked my colleague, the minister responsible for the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, to take your request into consideration and to inform you directly of her decision.
Yours sincerely,
Lester B. Pearson
Interim Supply
That was on March 11, 1966. Six weeks later, that is, on April 29, the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) replied to the letter of March 1 as follows:
Mr. Mayor,
I regret not having replied earlier to your letter of March 1 to the Prime Minister, in which you ask for the return of the famous model of Quebec City, built from 1806 to 1811 by captain John By (later promoted to the rank of colonel), of the Royal Corps of Engineers, and by Mr. DuBerger, military surveyor and member of the garrison.
By the way, I wish to point out that in the Secretary of State's letter, there is a mistake which was corrected and which I shall correct myself later on, with the help of some notes provided by the Chamber of Commerce of Quebec City. The minister goes on to say in her letter:
In order to clear up the misunderstanding which seems to persist regarding this model, it might be a good idea to explain that it has never belonged to Quebec City or to Lower Canada. Up to 1910, it belonged to the British Department of Defence which first needed it to draw up defence plans for Quebec City against a possible attack by the United States. That is why it was sent to Great Britain when completed in 1811. In 1910, it was brought back to Canada as a gift of the British government to the Canadian government for all the Canadian people. You realize that it would be quite improper for the Canadian government to part with a gift received under such conditions.
I might add that without the help of this model, the Natural History Branch of the National Museum of Canada would be unable to do justice either to the history of your province and Quebec City or to the history of national defence in our country.
I am fully aware of your interest in this model and I realize that it would prove useful in effecting restoration work in Old Quebec. I shall be glad to send you pictures of the model, some of which are very good. It goes without saying that your architects can come to Ottawa to examine the model which is on view in the Daly building.
Yours truly-
This letter is signed: Judy LaMarsh, Secretary of State, minister responsible for the model.
It is safe to assume that the recipients were far from pleased with this letter and that several points could be taken up in the minister's reply. That is why, hardly seven or eight days later, or on May 6, 1966, the mayor of Quebec City, Mr. Gilles Lamontagne replied to the Secretary of State as follows: My Dear Minister,
I am in receipt this very day of your letter dated last April 29, in answer to the letter I wrote to the right hon. Prime Minister requesting the return to Quebec of the famous DuBerger model.
I have noted your summary report of the history of the preparation and peregrinations of this work which, according to you, "would make it absolutely unconceivable" for the government of Canada to

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply
relinquish a gift received from the British government "for the whole of the Canadian people".
With much respect, I take the liberty of differing in opinion as to what you consider an absolute impropriety; the population of Quebec City is still Canadian, as far as I know.
II I may digress, I wish to say that the minister must have been flabbergasted by that answer, when she received this letter. I read on:
I really wonder why "without the help of that model, the Natural History Branch of the National Museum of Canada could not do justice either to the history of our province and of the City of Quebec, nor to the history of this country's national defence", if that model were to be exhibited in the City of Quebec, the oldest and most historic city in Canada.
That an outright grant of the model to the City of Quebec seems improper to you, is conceivable to me. But, I really do not see any serious reason which would prevent the government of which you are a member from exhibiting the model on premises located in Quebec City, under the control of the Natural History Branch of the National Museum of Canada.
Are the Battlefields Park, the Citadel, the harbour facilities and the post office, to cite only a few examples, not federal property, belonging to the whole of the Canadian people, although they are located in the City of Quebec? I sincerely believe that as much can be said about the historical works found there.
The Grande Hermine, which the federal government recently decided to rebuild for anchorage in the limits of Quebec City after Expo '67 will remain the property of the Canadian people. I sincerely believe that the Canadian government has given proof of its wisdom in deciding to exhibit it in Quebec City; in that sense, the government of which you are a member has understood that that historical reconstruction "belonged" to Quebec.
In the same sense, I believe that the DuBerger model "belongs" to Quebec City. If only for the sake of exhibition to our own public, in the city of which it represents a section very dear to us, it would be, in my humble opinion, a sufficient reason for the return of that model from Ottawa to Quebec City.
But we have more serious reasons. Indeed, when, in co-operation with the provincial Department of Cultural Affairs and the members of certain intermediary bodies, we are starting the development of a program for the restoration of Old Quebec, it is obvious that this model would be extremely useful to those who have undertaken to carry out rapidly this restoration which is necessary not only for us, Quebeckers, but for all the Canadian people. We consider that Old Quebec occupies the first place in our national heritage.
For that purpose, only the model's photographs which you offer to us would naturally not suffice. Moreover, the possibility for our architects to come to Ottawa for consultation according to your suggestion, cannot be considered as convenient. The great distance between Quebec and Ottawa would make the consultation costly and certainly less frequent, hence less effective.
Finally, for the centennial of the confederation, it is important that the model be exhibited in
[Mr. Gregoire.l
Quebec City, true centre of that national constitution.
After that account, I hope that you will reconsider your decision and that you will recommend the "return" of the DuBerger model. I am sure such a transfer can be brought about without disrespect toward historical proprieties; it would even improve on present conditions.
Yours truly,
Gilles Lamontagne Mayor of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few remarks made by the Chamber of Commerce in that connection. After reading all the exchange of correspondence, the Chamber of Commerce thought it proper to make a few remarks in its official organ Realisons.
In answer to an argument advanced by the Secretary of State, we can read this:
Even though the Quebec model was carried out under the orders of Major By, he is not the designer and even less the sculptor. As a matter of fact, Major By has taken no part at all in the creation and the making of the model even though, until 1831, the work was attributed to him by error. The controversy over the origin of the Quebec model has lasted long enough during the last century that it is useless to raise it once again in 1966, when in 1831, a copper plate was affixed to it, attributing it to DuBerger only. The idea was to pay a post mortem tribute to the inspired engineer who died in 1821.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
The Chamber of Commerce adds:
We do not ask the Canadian government to give up this precious relic, but rather to give it a place of honour in historic Quebec to which it belongs.
Further, it says:
It must not be forgotten either that during two centuries the destiny of the country was directed from the Chateau St-Louis. The orders of the Duke of Kent, father of Queen Victoria, and those of a good twenty French or English governors general of Canada were given from the Chateau St-Louis.
Under the circumstances, the right place for the DuBerger model would, again, be the historic ruins of the Chateau St-Louis, at least partially restored. Concerning such an initiative, we appeal to the patriotism-
And I add, for the information of the hon. lady, if she will listen to me-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am a Canadian patriot.


Gilles Grégoire: To continue:
Concerning such an initiative, we appeal to the patriotism, understanding and generosity of the Canadian government.
Finally, placed in historic Quebec under the custody and protection of the federal authorities, that model would constitute not only a lesson in legitimate pride and preservation of historic Quebec for the people of Quebec, but also a splendid
July 11, 1986

history lesson for the thousands of Canadian taxpayers and American tourists who visit us every year.
Respectfully submitted on May 17. 1966.
The Chamber of Commerce of the district of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the facts, I would like to ask the Secretary of State the following questions: First, since there seems to be a difference of opinion with regard to the history of the model, would the Secretary of State be willing to have a real study made about the history and the peregrinations of the DuBerger model?
Second, would she be ready to reconsider with the members of her department and the director of the National Museum of Canada, the advisability and possibility of repatriating the DuBerger model to Quebec City?
I think that the minister could have that study of the history made and could also ask her senior officials to reconsider that matter.
There is a whole sector of the population who would like to see the DuBerger model transferred to Quebec City for tourist and historical reasons. The municipal council of the city of Quebec would also like to have that model on view in Quebec City, in order to make it easier for the Quebec engineers to restore Old Quebec.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take this request into serious consideration and will see to it that it is complied with. Since I am able to do so, I act as the spokesman in the house for the mayor of Quebec City and the Chamber of Commerce to ask the minister to reconsider the matter. Knowing her great understanding and patriotism, I hope that she will return that model to Quebec City.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that, when considering interim supply, we are allowed to talk about all kinds of things, I would also like to take this opportunity to discuss a particular subject, while the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is in his seat. Not so long ago, that is on June 24, 1966, we received from the office of the Minister of Finance, a news release about the Small Businesses Loans Act. It gave statistics about the loans made under the act to small businesses between January and March 31, 1966 and I would now like to quote a few figures.
The small businesses in British Columbia secured in the three-month period covered by the news release from the Minister of Finance
Interim Supply
loans amounting to $846,292 out of a total of $5,091,885.
In Ontario, loans amounting to $2,066,159 were made to small businesses, while in Quebec they amounted to only $760,977, approximately 12 or 13 per cent of $5,091,885. On the other hand, in a small province like Alberta, $497,039 were loaned.
I would ask the Minister of Finance to find out from his department why there should be such disproportion. Why is it that, under the Small Loans Act, three times as much can be loaned to Ontario as to Quebec? Not that I am against Ontario being given $2,066,159 in loans; but I should like to know why so few have been granted in Quebec. Still, we know many requests are made for loans by small businesses in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to know why that federal enactment does not allow for granting as much in loans in the province of Quebec as in Ontario or in British Columbia? Indeed, the latter received $846,292 in loans, while Quebec got only $760,977 in loans. In other words, a small province like British Columbia received 80,000 worth of loans more that a large province like Quebec. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to look into the matter and tell us why the disproportion is so great.
I notice, for instance, that in 1965 the difference was not as marked: British Columbia received $879,616 and Quebec, $1,467,205, out of a total amount of $5,550,933. That is approximately 25 per cent. It has been diminishing lately. I would ask the Minister of Finance whether we could have an investigation?
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) is not in the house now but I wonder if the minister would convey to him certain remarks I wish to make about his department.
I have here a letter sent by the Department of National Revenue to parishes, to parish priests, to churchwardens, to vestry boards and concerning:
Re: 1966 T4 Information Return.
That letter was sent in English. I have here a letter sent to the cathedral of Hauterive, on the north shore, county of Saguenay.


Mr. Bechard:: It is a mistake.


Gilles Grégoire: The cathedral of Hauterive received that letter in English. If this is a

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
mistake, I will read a few others to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State. He will notice that there are many mistakes.


Albert Béchard: A few.


Gilles Grégoire: I hear the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard), I think-


Albert Béchard: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: -who says that there are a few mistakes. I could mention several and I will quote others.
The parish of Hauterive answered to the Minister of National Revenue under the signature of Roger Cantin, president of the churchwardens of the cathedral of Hauterive:
Sir, we acknowledge receipt of your explanatory letter on the income tax returns recently received, the original copy of which you will find enclosed.
Needless to say, we are ready to submit to all the requirements of the income tax so that everything may be conformable to the law. However, the letter you have just sent to us is unacceptable because it is written in English only and we demand, as is our right, that such a letter be written in French.
The vestry-board of the parish of the cathedral of Hauterive, having noted the letter, have refused to have it translated and implement, as long as it is not forthcoming in French. We are therefore requesting that you return the explanations to which we are entitled like everybody else, but in our own language.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
You accept tax-money from French Canadians, you should at least have the decency to write to them in their own language.
We are then awaiting the information asked for in this letter and we expect it to be supplied in French. Perhaps you had none left, but it would have been easy to delay your reply for a week and have some printed. Copy of this letter is being sent to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of National Revenue, to the member for our constituency and to some members of the opposition.
In the hope that you will grant our request, we remain.
Truly yours
The Vestry Board of Hauterive per Roger Cantin, president of the Church wardens
I have another one, not necessarily in the same field, but again from the Income Tax Division.
This person receives the following reply from the Department of National Revenue:
Thank you for your letter regarding your income tax account.
As soon as we have reviewed your account, you will receive a reply.
The person writes and asks for explanations.

I would therefore ask the Minister of National Revenue to see that those forms are translated-I know that there are some in French-and distributed. It is not sufficient to have them printed in French. It would be an excellent thing if the officials, who absolutely wish to act as dictators by reducing receipts for charitable donations, should at least write in French in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to deal with another department. I have before me a letter which might amuse a few members of the house; it concerns the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Please note that I have nothing against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; far from it, I think it does a good job and I gladly praise it when the occasion warrants. I congratulate the authorities for a recent improvement. For some time, I have noticed that the officers on the hill are bilingual and can easily converse with the french-speaking and english-speaking tourists. However, it might sometimes be useful to remind Commissioner MacLellan of certain facts, to keep him on his toes and encourage further improvements, things are looking up, but there is still a lot to be done. It may be the slowest department to get moving, perhaps because the R.C.M.P. is the slowest on the uptake.
I have received a letter from a school teacher, I shall quote a few excerpts. This fellow was driving to school to teach on Tuesday, June 21, 1966 and there is every indication that he was going a bit fast in the Gatineau parkway; he does not say he did, but a R.C.M.P. constable proved he was going a bit too fast. However, according to this letter, the R.C.M.P. officer did not stop the teacher immediately, but only 10 minutes later. He waited for the teacher to reach the school yard, and in full view of about 500 students, as the school bell rang, the R.C.M.P. officer made his entrance with his siren on; to make matters worse, that same fellow, a native of Hull, tracking down speed violators, did not know a single word of French. And this, in the province of Quebec, in Hull, at the Saint-Jean-Baptiste high school in Hull. I quote:
At 8.55 a.m., a young constable, W. D. Maxwell got out of his car shouting "What do you think you're doing?", or words to that effect, which sounded to me most arrogant. Hundreds of students were drifting toward my car. I politely asked him to repeat and apologized for not understanding English. Feeling a bit foolish, I imagine, and in spite of the students' jeers, he had the nerve to ask two of them to act as interpreters.
July 11, 1966

And I can very well see Hull high school students acting as interpreters for the Royal Canadian Mounted police.
And the teacher goes on:
I tell you all this as a protest against the uni-lingualism of the R.C.M.P. constables in Quebec territory, against the arrogance of the colonial greenhorn who stopped me, against the disturbance this officer created in a school, where even in ordinary circumstances, it is not easy to impart good education; he held me up to my own students, as a model of misconduct, and I feel that in so doing he undermined the very foundations of the educational system. If I committed an offence, it was outside the school property.
And that is not all; the same teacher goes on:
And that is not the end of the story. This afternoon I have telephoned the R.C.M.P. headquarters, to demand apologies for their way of enforcing law and order. Witnesses will confirm that I was referred to six officers one after the other, some of them apologized politely, others bawled me out, before I could get a single French word in edgewise. The little French speaking constable to whom I spoke promised he would take my complaints to his superiors (naturally he was in a subordinate position being French Canadian). A little later on, he called me back to let me know that only in court could I demand a review of the situation and a different approach to value.
And he adds:
-the stature of the R.C.M.P. is not enhanced by this business. And Ottawa will wonder why young Quebeckers are separatists . . . and anarchists-
Mr. Chairman, this took place in a Hull school, before 500 students, where the R.C. M.P. agent had to ask students to act as interpreters.
I believe a complaint should be made against such actions. Since the complaints made here against unilingualism of R.C.M.P. officers on the Parliament Hill were profitable, I think the same complaints should be made against this R.C.M.P. agent who was on duty in Hull and who, moreover, thought it proper to go and prove in a school of 500 to 600 students that, being on duty in the province of Quebec, he did not know a word of French.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I hope the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), responsible for the R.C.M.P., will take this remark into consideration in order to urge further the R.C. M.P. commissioner to see to it that this police body which can do a good job in certain fields, can also improve in other fields to give satisfaction.
Mr. Chairman, these then were a few desultory remarks I wished to make. I trust they will be taken into consideration and that a solution will be found fairly soon to the problems I have pointed out.
Interim Supply


Albert Béchard: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: But of course.


Albert Béchard: I did not want to interrupt the honourable member, neither while he read his numerous letters nor during his speech; that is why I waited to put this question.
A while ago he spoke of the repatriation of the DuBerger model. Does he mean that that model once was in Quebec City?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman, according to the statement of the Chamber of Commerce I read here, it was there once; it was built there by one Jean Baptiste DuBerger between 1806 and 1811. It stayed there, at the seat of Government of Lower Canada at the time. It was only after the end of the war against the Americans that British troops took it to England. Those troops had not fought the war; as you will remember, that war was won at Chateauguay, near Valley-field, by the troops of Colonel Salaberry, a good French Canadian of those days. The model came back to Canada in 1910, and today the citizens of Quebec would like it to come back to Quebec City for tourist and historical reasons, but most of all to facilitate the renovation of Old Quebec which the city of Quebec and the Quebec Department of Cultural Affairs have recently undertaken.
I trust the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), whom I see in the house, will support my request and that of the authorities of the Quebec District Chamber of Commerce, the mayor and municipal council of Quebec so that that old model, now located in Ottawa, can be sent back home within the old walls of the city of Quebec.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this probably is one of the problems in this type of debate where we keep moving from one subject to another, but I should like to go back to the C.B.C. difficulties. I suppose I could activate Jimmy in that regard; he will understand. I think the problems of the C.B.C. have always been really in the never-never land where the government is not supposed to interfere, and yet parliament is supposed to make the decision as to what the C.B.C. stands for. I do not say this in any policital party sense, but it is interesting to note that in the years that the C.B.C. has been in operation there have been many conservatives in this house. They

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply
appear to be on all sides of the house, on the left, on the right, and in front of me. I am sure that anyone who has been here very long will realize that the right and left wings of parliament do not necessarily stand with the political parties. I think it is true that there are many who say the C.B.C. is safe, for the simple reason that over the years it has been able to establish a status quo; it does not offend anybody and certainly does not step on any toes.
There are also those who would like to see the C.B.C. become a vibrant force, the developer of Canadian nationalism. For this reason I think in this debate there has been a lack of idealism. I think the major problem which faces the Canadian public today is their lack of ability to make any correction, change, or expression of desire in respect of the Canadian broadcasting system. It always has been interesting to me to note that my political party, the New Democratic Party and previously the C.C.F., always considered the C.B.C. to be a holy cow about which you did not say anything bad, and you attacked anyone who was going to say anything about it. When debates were taking place and everybody was congratulating the C.B.C. for the advancements it made in the field of drama, which I did not understand at all, I was interested, in the success achieved by Don Messer's Islanders, as a summer replacement. I am sure its success shocked the C.B.C. officials as much as did the "Seven Days" dispute. They tried to remove the Islanders and found that it was rated about the second highest of all the programs. Finally they had to yield to the demand of a large segment of the public and keep Don Messer on.
I am one of those who believe the C.B.C. has a number of functions. If you can squeeze in drama and probably anything else that is good for people, along with entertainment, this is all to the good; but entertainment should not be disregarded entirely. I am sure the C.B.C. was shocked to find that the program 'Seven Days" was receiving such a wide audience appeal. I never have stood up to talk about "Festival" because I think those who run "Festival" are a bunch of nuts, and that a lot of the programs are like that. This is just a personal opinion. I know nothing about drama. I have not criticized it because I thought it must have some good in it and that perhaps people liked it.
I did like "Seven Days". In the last election when I travelled through my constituency I was surprised to find when I entered a house

when the "Seven Days" program was on-and this followed Bonanza-that you could not talk to the people at that time. I have had an opportunity to watch "Seven Days" and considered it to be a very good program. I feel that if they put on eight or ten items and I am only mad at one of them, they have done pretty well for me. If everyone found the same thing, I think it did very well for them.
It is all well to talk about Minifie. I never saw such a deadpan announcer. He is like an announcer on a local radio station who, when announcing the death of someone, made it sound like a hilarious occasion and when talking about the strike-made it sound like a wonderful thing. I think on "Seven Days" there has been a very good balance. This is something which I think most of those who have resented "Seven Days" appear to forget. The three million persons who watched the program considered it to be a pretty good program. Maybe one person phoned Bud Walker and said it was bad, and he made a public apology. He apologized for a situation at St. Vincent de Paul that did not require an apology. I know this from first hand experience because I was there. I know that it was not as complete as it might have been, but what was taped was a two hour program and it had to be cut down to eight minutes. I agree that the warden did not get as much time as he might have, but he got some time. I participated in this program, did not get any time, and I did not complain to Mr. Walker. I believe his apology was unwarranted.
When I hear these weak sisters stand up in parliament and talk about the grand and glorious picture of parliament which must be given, I say that if you must have this, then get out of politics. We want an interview to be dynamic. I can even get sick when I see Charles Lynch interview the Prime Minister, and carry him for 60 minutes. The Prime Minister of this country has a great deal to give to the public and he does not have to be carried by someone with an opposite view. Everybody knows where Charles Lynch stands politically. I was ashamed of that program. I was ashamed of the fact that there was a need to build a little wall around somebody. If they need that, then they should not be interviewed.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It seems to me that the interviews carried out on the "Seven Days" program were well done, and I think particularly of the interview of Mr. Bundy, conducted by two young
July 11. 1966

men. I went to the C.B.C. offices shortly afterwards and asked Bud Walker how he would like to have conducted that interview. He told me that he would not have wanted particularly to conduct it. A great many complaints were made because Bundy took over the interview from beginning to end, and would hardly allow the interviewers to ask any questions. I give the two young men full credit for the efforts in the interview, because Bundy is such a capable man he could take over the whole show. If it were not for the fact that these young fellows got a little belligerent they probably would not have got a word in edgewise. This interview was more like a paid political broadcast, and Mr. Bundy acted like the man paying for it, not wanting the interviewers to interrupt.
Surely we must all agree that the management situation is bad. We know that the Prime Minister was blackmailed into appointing Mr. Ouimet as president for another seven years, at a time when he intended to appoint him for only one year. I am sure everyone is aware of the fact that Mr. Briggs was appointed by a previous administration to keep Mr. Walker in line, and to set up what one might consider as a ship-shape organization. This sure is a leaky ship, foundering on the rocks. It has been leaking water for a long time. If I were a dictatorial minister I would reappoint Mr. Ouimet to carry on in his capacity. He has not done a damned thing for the C.B.C. for some time, in fact since Mr. Briggs came on the scene. I would get rid of Briggs and Walker because they have not only done little, but everything they have done has been done wrong and at the wrong time. They could not have picked a worse time to fire LaPierre and Watson. Those two gentlemen became identified with the sympathy of three and a half million viewers.
The French Canadians suggest that LaPierre does not portray the French Canadian, but for my part I think he portrays a very nice type of French Canada, and I like that kind. LaPierre is emotional, gets involved, flies off the handle and cries when it is necessary. Even though the French Canadian people tell you they are not emotional, LaPierre portrays the emotional French Canadian. I do not like separatists, or young people who go around dragging things through the mud and making everything as difficult as possible. I think most English speaking Canadians like and enjoy the type of French Canadian that LaPierre portrayed.
Interim Supply
They believe that the balance created between the emotional LaPierre on one side and the cool and calculating critical Watson on the other was sort of a cultural balance. Whether one agrees or disagrees with my feelings, approximately three and a half million viewers felt that these co-hosts created a cultural Canadian balance. You might think that this was an Alice in Wonderland type of program but I think it was good.
I attended the meetings of the broadcasting committee, not because I had to but because I was interested, and I know many of my colleagues were interested in this situation. Many people in this country are going to ask us, as members of parliament, to indicate which side of this controversy we support. I for one cannot understand how the management side can be justified. If people charged with managing cannot manage, then they are not management. This fact brings to mind a situation which occurred in respect of the Hollinger mine. An individual had 5,000 people working for him. The supervisor told him that he could not find a job for one individual and therefore he would have to be fired. The manager, in reply, suggested that if the supervisor and himself could not find a job for everyone they were not managing the company properly. The management of the Hollinger mine was certainly not benevolent in their approach to employees but they adopted the attitude that there must be a place for everybody, and if a place could not be found management was not doing its job.
Some may think that management has a right to be dictatorial but I do not believe that is true. After all, this is not the eighteenth century. We do have a masters and servants act; but I remember listening to a well known Ontario lawyer argue a case, and I am sure he lost it when it became apparent that he was basing his argument on the provisions of this act. Management has a role and that role is to manage. Employees also have a role, and that role is to give as much service and ability as possible. It is not their position to try to usurp management's role. They must, of course, give the best that they can within the established framework. Surely this is an obligation.
I listened to Reeves Haggan last night on Doug Fisher's show over C.T.V. I think Doug Fisher has an uncanny ability to bring out what is in people. If it is bad, he brings it out; if it is good, he brings it out. He

July 11, 1966
Interim Supply
does not compete or put himself in a competitive position with the person being interviewed. I think he made it obvious that Reeves Haggan is a capable and sincere person and that he left his position because he felt the dismissal of certain producers was not done on a normal and proper management relationship. He was informed that Leiterman was to be dismissed with only two days notice.
This afternoon we were informed how the dismissal of these producers came about. I wonder whether people watching the program last night, after listening to Mr. Haggan, would feel that he was one of a group of young ambitious men. In my opinion he represents the progressive element of the C.B.C., and a young man who is interested in doing his job. At no time did he suggest that he was interested in taking over the C.B.C. At no time was he vindictive.
The situation has to be changed and I suggest the first step to be taken is to dismiss Walker. His dismissal must be arranged. He is the man who is responsible, not only for starting this conflagration but also for pouring fuel on it when it got going. Fuel was provided for this fire also by members of the broadcasting committee, as well as by Mr. Keate and Mr. Fowler.
Who allowed Mr. Walker to go to Toronto in October and take over the operations there? Is the minister aware of the fact that Mr. Walker said he was not going to do this when he was in Ottawa, but that he received a phone call from Mr. Ouimet telling him that he was about to release a statement and that it was to be attributed to Mr. Walker? I have heard a lot of talk about political pressures in the C.B.C. organization, but I do not think there are any as we know them. I believe the situation is much like an insurance company headed by a "Mother Ouimet", who decided that politics had to be involved. [DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Let us take a more cogent example. Let us look at any major union in Canada-and I have had something to do with several of them. There are politics in these unions. They do not call the politicians Liberals, Conservatives, N.D.P. or anything else; but these are politics whereby people are trying to better themselves and set up their own political regime, in the sense of the organization to which they belong. I am rather inclined to believe that the C.B.C. in its lines of demarcation have spent more time on the politics of
(Mr. Peters.]
those lines than on politics as we know them, whereby politicians in the House of Commons have any influence on them.
I doubt whether there are very many people in parliament today who would say we should get rid of the C.B.C. I am of the opinion, however, that there are many who would say, "Don't let the C.B.C. get any stronger than it is. Don't let it have any greater influence than it has. In fact, any problem the C.B.C. has is all to the good, because it may go away by itself.". I think a number of members of parliament would agree that private television might do a better job if the C.B.C. was out of the way. Mr. Haggan was asked yesterday whether he could produce a good public affairs program without money, and he said, "Absolutely not". He was asked whether this was the reason "Seven Days" had been so successful and indicated that it had a reasonably modest budget for that type of production.
The minister just made a comment which I did not hear. I do not know whether she agrees with what I said or not. But the budget varies anywhere from about $12,000 a week to $50,000 a week; so that in discussing it we were never sure how much the budget was. Perhaps when I was not there the committee was able to ascertain exactly the total cost of this program including technical assistance, studio and all the other things necessary. His point was that C.T.V. was providing enough money in some of the productions they were undertaking to be able to produce, reasonably, a better type of television program than they were producing. The reason they were not producing a better type of program was that the people in the C.B.C., built up through the C.B.C. and by the C.B.C., were more capable than any others in Canada. I think this is true and would agree that the producers of "Seven Days" were probably of the top calibre.
I was surprised at the remark a Conservative made in the committee. In view of where he sits I would have thought his position would have been different. Mr. Haggan was referring to Leiterman and called him a near-genius. I do not know whether I would go that far. I do not know what a near-genius is; nor do I know what a distant one would be. I do not even know what mediocre producers are like; this is not my field. But it is my opinion that with a viewing audience of three and a half million the program "Seven Days" was the kind of thing that should have been extended into
July 11, 1966

other fields. I honestly believe that over the years the C.B.C. has developed a very impartial news media that probably cannot be duplicated anywhere. I think its public affairs programs were never of that calibre, and with "Seven Days" we had a program that had a large audience and was presenting things that were controversial and interesting. One hon. member mentioned L.S.D. I watched that program. Some members should pay some attention to these programs and not talk about things they have not seen. I came to the conclusion that I just didn't have guts enough to try L.S.D.
I am quite sure this was brought home to many young people of this country as well. The program did not only show the fantasies produced through taking L.S.D., and the medical aspects of it, but it showed the dangers of taking this drug.


An hon. Member:: It didn't show enough.


William Arnold Peters: It showed enough that I would not go out and undertake one of those experiments with a sugar cube that somebody gave me on the street. That is the good feature of programs such as this; many people see them and realize the dangers involved in this kind of thing. This is what makes television such an important media. It provided me and a great many other people with information on a subject I did not know anything about, and it provided that information in such a way that I felt I would not have the nerve to take that trip into insanity-


An hon. Member:: You wouldn't get back.


William Arnold Peters: -or whatever they call it, because I just did not have the nerve. Some members may not have thought of it in that way. Some may have decided they were going to take it. More power to them. I do not want to duplicate anybody's action in this regard. I believe the public is smarter than those members of parliament who are ultraconservative and want to go back in time, rather than forward. I believe the public is smarter than they give them credit for. The public have a right to make a decision on some things, and I believe they are better equipped so do so because of television and other news media. In addition, Mr. Chairman, we have in this country more people with university education than ever before. This applies also to people with high school or public school education. They read, write and can observe and, in my opinion, are well
Interim Supply
equipped to make a decision. Even at election time they make their decision, whether rightly or wrongly. They are now in a position to make that decision. I believe their decision is getting "righter" as time goes by.
In my opinion people are now making better decisions, and I believe that television is a medium that assists them to do this. It is a medium where the individual viewer is in close and immediate contact with the screen and the people on it. I think it provides a much clearer picture of the situation than we would otherwise have.
We know what the press has said about this program. I am surprised at the strength of their opposition to "Seven Days". I would not know whether it was because Leiterman had been previously in the journalistic field; I would not know whether it is caused by petty jealousy; I do not know whether it is the up-staging these people have received. I am not really sure of the reason but have been surprised by it, because I have found that newspaper people as a rule are not resentful of others making an impression on the public, but have enjoyed the added prestige the journalistic type of communication was creating, whether it be in the magazine, television or newspaper field.
I have been surprised at the resentment the press has shown to the desire of young people to make an impression in the C.B.C. organization and obtain some rapport with management and others, to obtain a dialogue to be carried on between top management and the production level so that top management would be aware of what they were trying to do, wanted to do and were capable of doing. Then management would make the decision whether Canada was ready for this type of thing.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe that parliament has now to make a decision. Do we go back to the mediocre coverage we were receiving in public affairs programming, or do we continue to expand in this field and go into programs like "Quarterly". The French Canadians will scream blue murder, I am sure, at some of the things that have been said on "Quarterly" because there are English and French speaking people who do not really have an understanding of the program, and the intention of trying to bring the two races together to develop something that will eventually become Canadian talent and Canadian national culture.

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply
I believe this is a role of the C.B.C. and it is the type of role that should be developed. I believe it cannot be developed by the Walkers, by the Ouimets, or by the Briggs. It can possibly be developed by people like Haggan, Thibault, and some of the others who are dedicated entirely to their work, and the people with whom they work.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I think they are willing to experiment, they
are willing to allow for an exchange of ideas in a completely new field. This will not be possible if there is a lack of understanding between the producers of both networks at that particular level. I am assured by some that this can also extend into other parts of th C.B.C., not only in the field of public affairs programming but in other fields. It will be difficult for the minister to sit idly by and not do something about the many reports that have been brought to her attention over the past year or so. If this happens, then the three and a half million Canadians who have watched and enjoyed this program will ask themselves: Why have the members of parliament not done something about this matter? It is not' our duty to interfere in the business of the C.B.C. by firing the individuals concerned or by reappointing Leiterman and re-establishing "Seven Days", but to establish a rapport which will allow for a dialogue and a free exchange of ideas between management and producers.
I believe there should be something for the right and something for the left', and I hope there will be a program in the fall for three
and a half million people to enjoy.


Edison John Clayton Loney: I rise to participate in this debate on interim supply because of the very serious situation which exists in the southern portion of the riding of Bruce, which I represent. This situation exists not only in part of Bruce county but also in the lower part of Gray and the surrounding counties. I am further prompted to speak this evening on the subject, Mr. Chairman, because of the lack of satisfactory answers to questions I have raised in the house in the last few days regarding a letter to the Prime Minister which alludes to a certain campaign promise made on November 4 concerning area development. This promise was made to the people of the Kincardine area.
The subject on which I wish to speak, Mr. Chairman, is the problem which is created when one area has been designated as a

depressed or slow growth area, and the area adjacent to it is not so designated. The communities in the south of Grey and Bruce counties are very much at a disadvantage when they must compete with the other part of the county to attract industrial development and expansion.
We are well aware, Mr. Chairman, that under the existing legislation these sectors do not qualify for designation even though they are recognized as such by every survey which has been made to date. When the Minister of Industry introduced the new program on August 5, 1965 he said the areas which qualify are characterized by high and chronic unemployment, low family incomes, and contain some 16 per cent of the national labour force as compared with approximately 7.5 per cent of the labour force covered under the former plan.
There is low unemployment in the area concerned because there is no industrial expansion. There has been an industrial decline and an industrial stagnation. The employees have moved away to become unemployment statistics in the metropolitan centres. The government boasts of policies to relieve unemployment but they have done so at the expense of rural areas. The workers have migrated to metropolitan centres but they want to return to their homes in the Georgian bay and lake Huron areas.
These problems have been of great concern to myself and to my colleague, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. We have communicated with the Minister of Industry, but with no success. There have been numerous delegations and representations made to the department but to no avail. We have made every possible approach to the department concerned. We have joined with representatives of the communities concerned, with county councils, industrial commissions, chambers of commerce and individual businessmen. We have used a non-political approach. We have had delegates from the Liberal organizations, and on one occasion a delegation which had among its members the defeated Liberal candidates from that region. That was a large delegation.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce and myself are concerned about the future of our area. I may assure the house that we are not alone in this concern. The provincial member for Bruce, a member of the Liberal party, is also very much concerned. He is especially concerned abou a commitment made to the
July 11. 1966

people of Kincardine on November 4 prior to the last election.
I am now referring to a letter written by that member to the Prime Minister on May 19, 1966. The letter was published in an article headed "Ross Whicher Requests Action on Recent Federal Election Promise by Liberal Party". It was written at the Parliament Buildings, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ont., and reads as follows:
The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson Prime Minister of Canada House of Commons Ottawa. Canada My Dear Prime Minister:
During the past several weeks I have written to you twice in regard to the statement issued immediately previous to the last federal election by the Liberal candidate for Bruce in so far as the town of Kincardine and its immediate area were to be affected by the term "designated area" is concerned. I have also talked to your secretary by telephone and had correspondence with the Hon. Mr. Drury, the Minister in charge of this particular problem.
I will not go into the question again as to whether Kincardine should or should not be included as a designated area. There are arguments on both sides. However, to me as the Liberal member for the area for the past eleven years in the provincial legislature, there is a far more serious question. It is a matter to me of principle and of honour. May I quote the News Release that was given verbally to the people of Kincardine by Kent Lamont, the Liberal candidate, just a few days before the last election, and also given to the press, radio and television.
Statement received by Gordon Beaton from Mr. Keith Davey this afternoon, November 4th, by phone to be conveyed to Mr. Kent Lamont, Liberal candidate in the riding of Bruce re designated areas. If Mr. Lamont wishes to make a statement publicly the following is the suggested announcement he should make: "I have been in touch with the Minister of Industry who has advised me that the area development agency of his department have embarked upon a study to determine what should be the boundaries of the Georgian Bay economic region. They are being assisted in this study by the Ontario government." If Mr. Lamont wishes he could add the following: "I have been authorized that I may announce that Kincardine area will after this study be included in the area already designated. I have been assured by the Minister that circumstances in the Kincardine area are exactly that which these studies are directed and that I can assure the people of the Kincardine area that it will be included in the designated area."
Can anything be more explicit? Here we have the word of Keith Davey, now a Senator who, at that time was national organizer for the Liberal party and through his position speaking officially for the Liberal party.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
This promise has not been kept. Honour has been a word that has been synonymous with your whole life. May I respectfully say that it is a word that has described your political life more than any other. I hope that in a small way it helps to describe me. Most humbly I tell you that I did
Interim Supply
not win this riding against such Conservative leadership as Leslie Frost and John Robarts by stretching the truth even in an election campaign. And by our lack of action we Liberals have certainly misinformed the people of Kincardine. Out of respect for my Prime Minister I am being temperate in my wording. If you were an ordinary Liberal I would use that language which I normally employ to describe such things.
He concludes by saying:
Under the circumstances, as outlined above, it will be impossible for me to associate myself with any proclamations or declarations that your government may issue for this area. Regrettably, I would always have the feeling that it might not be carried out.
Yours very truly,
Ross M. Whicher, M.P.P.
(Bruce)
I ask the government to honour their pledge. Again I ask the government to alleviate the serious situation which exists today. The designated areas program provides for an annual review. Has this problem been reconsidered? I do not want action of the kind described by the minister when pressed to remove the discrimination and competition created by this bill, namely to remove designation from the adjacent area. Unemployment is the basic criterion for designation, yet the word "unemployment" appears only once in the statement of the minister extending over some five pages, which he made on August 5, 1965.
With reference to that statement, Mr. Chairman, I say that that word was used only once. He went on to use very descriptive phrases, such as economic difficulties, variety of industries, growing markets, industrial development, economic growth, employment opportunities and incentive program. When the Prime Minister introduced this legislation first on June 7, 1965, he indicated that the program of incentives for area development was a further measure in the government's campaign against poverty and inadequate opportunities, and as reported at page 2022 of Hansard he said:
This program is designed to encourage the establishment of industry in areas of Canada where there is a special need to raise employment and income and broaden economic opportunity for people.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I submit that if the people of my riding do not qualify for this, then I do not know what they would qualify for.
With regard to the minister's statement, I would ask, why such narrow criteria for such a broad program of assistance? I recognize that statistical criteria must be employed, but we have asked that designation apply to the

July 11. 1966
Interim Supply
general area on a regional basis or on a county basis, or counties adjacent to one another having similar problems and need for special economic development incentives. I ask not only for designation of the area in my riding but also for designation on a regional basis, so that general economic conditions will be improved and development accelerated.
In support of my plea this evening I should like to refer to the letter I received from the mayor of Kincardine this afternoon. It is dated July 9, 1966 and is as follows:
Dear Sir:
I follow very closely all reports from parliament as given by the London Free Press. I appreciate and wish to express my personal thanks for your efforts on our behalf re designated area. I note you are bringing attention to a letter by Ross Whicher to the Prime Minister on our behalf before the house next week. I personally wrote the Prime Minister on June 9, 1966 re statements by Kent Lamont, also a reply to a telegram from the Prime Minister after our delegation to Ottawa last summer and I am also waiting for a reply.
I also had a telephone call this evening from the chairman of the industrial commission in Kincardine, who received a copy of the statement alleged to have been circulated by the Liberal organization-and I say alleged because I have no way of knowing whether or not it is authentic until the government takes some sort of action. This is the statement that was forwarded, in the first instance, to the candidates in the last campaign. In his telephone conversation this evening the chairman urged me to do everything possible to alleviate the serious situation existing today in the town of Kincardine. He pointed to the area immediately to the north, which has already benefited from the designation; and while I do not doubt for one moment that there is a certain amount of jealousy, I feel that the people in the area are quite justified in feeling that way when we read that there has been recent industrial expansion and development in the communities which are immediately affected, namely Port Elgin, Owen Sound, Midland and further north.
Just recently there has been a new $1 million plant which commenced construction in the town of Port Elgin. There must be something wrong in the area, Mr. Chairman, when the Prime Minister chooses the Bruce peninsula, in particular the city of Owen Sound, to announce on November 4 tax incentives which were designed to help the tourist industry to earn more U.S. dollars. This announcement was featured in an article in the Globe and Mail for that date under the heading "P.M. announces incentives".

There must be something wrong when we see press clippings on June 29, particularly one in the Port Elgin Times, which says that this area has been selected for a job vacancy survey.
There must be something wrong, Mr. Chairman, when a Liberal candidate prior to the last election said that, if elected, he would attempt to have the riding of Grey-Bruce designated in order to receive assistance to secure new industries. Another candidate in the riding of Bruce referred to the fact that action in Bruce county was needed, and this, mind you, is after the program had been brought in on August 5, 1965.
Another press clipping, this time from the Kincardine News for December 15, 1965, is headed "Confer with federal Minister of Inquiry" and commences as follows:
The exclusion of the Kincardine area from the federal government's "designated area" has dealt a severe blow to any hopes of attracting industry to this region, but the members of the local Industrial Committee are still striving to change the decision to draw the boundary line at North Bruce.
Another editorial is headed "Discrimination in Designated Areas".
We ask, Mr. Chairman, that something be done to alleviate this situation. We ask for consideration. We ask further for some amendment of the act to be brought in to equate opportunities in the Georgian Bay area. We ask that something-anything-be done to rectify the current decline and regression. Surely, Mr. Chairman, even though this government has a record of so many changes, revisions, last minute stands and reversals, it will find that in changing the formula it would not be setting any unwarranted precedent.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I regret having to take a couple moments of the time of this committee, but there are certain things that I must bring to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is responsible, of course, for the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and for the recent so-called baby census that has taken place.
This variety of census of course is very important, and it should be accurate because government policies having to do with social welfare, immigration, finance and the like are dependant on its accuracy, as are businesses and like institutions throughout the country. A couple of instances of inaccuracies in the
July 11, 1966



recent census have been brought to my attention. I am sure that other hon. members have had similar things brought to their attention.
This census, Mr. Chairman, has cost many millions of dollars. Many government departments and government policies are dependant on the accuracy of it. I should like to cite an instance of inaccuracy in the census, for the benefit of the minister, and I hope that he may send out instructions, or that he may request the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to sent out instructions, so that something can be done to rectify the obvious mistakes and inaccuracies which have crept into the recent census taking.
A newspaper in the city of Woodstock reports an astonishing incident where a census taker went to a residence in which there are a number of apartments. The census taker, apparently unable to find at home some of the persons living in the apartment house requested the proprietor of the building to guess at the answers to some of the six questions that were put. The proprietor declined the invitation, and presumably the census taker filled in the answers from his, or her, as the case may be, imagination. It turned out that one of the occupants of the apartment building had been enumerated without her knowledge, and it was quite clear therefore that the information must have been filled in from the imagination of the census taker.
Another incident brought to my attention was in the city of Toronto. The home of a relation of mine, who at the time was temporarily absent was enumerated; Also his daughter, a university student, was taking a course outside the country. It turns out that the person replying to the census taker was informed that since two persons were absent from the residence on the day of enumeration, they could not be included in the census. Incidentally the hon. member for York South was informed of this incident by letter.
The thing I was to bring to the minister's attention is this: One of these incidents was uncovered by a newspaper, and the other was brought to my attention by a private individual, These are two instances of inaccuracies. There must be many other inaccuracies in this census. Even if 1 per cent of the information is wrong, that could have a very serious effect on the results of the census and the use to which the figures arising from it can be put.
This census has cost the taxpayers many millions of dollars. I hope that the Minister of
Ways and Means
Trade and Commerce considers it his responsibility to see that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics checks into this matter, to see if anything can be done about remedying these inaccuracies. It is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that those who were responsible for instructing the census takers did not do their jobs very well. As for the people taking the census, certainly a considerable number of them did not know what they were doing.
I draw this to the minister's attention and I hope that he may take the appropriate remedial action.


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

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

["Mr. Speaker, I think we can only digest so much. Perhaps we should consider what the minister has said and give him another opportunity to continue his statement at our next sitting.\nI should now like to call it ten o'clock."]
Mitchell William Sharp: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, the sum of $1,662,982,791.93, be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the attention of the Minister of National Revenue for just a few moments with regard to a matter that I have had occasion to raise many times. The references that I wish to make on this occasion, however, are few and brief.
On June 17, as recorded in Hansard at page 6543, I asked the Minister of National Revenue if he would consider arranging for a term of reference to be given to the joint committee on the public service so that it might discuss the question of, adjusting the pensions of retired civil servants. The minister replied on that occasion in these words:


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue) :: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have no objection to doing that providing the committee completes the huge amount of work it now has before it in considering four very complicated bills.
I replied:
That is fine: we can do it after we have completed the other bills.
Ten days later, as recorded in Hansard at page 6873, I renewed the question. On that occasion I asked the minister if he would discuss with representatives of the various parties in the house the possible wording of a

July 11. 1966
Ways and Means
term of reference so that the matter of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants might be considered by the joint committee on the public service when it has finished the other matters that have been referred to it.
I should like to read the reply given on that occasion, which as I have said is on page 6873. It reads as follows:


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the joint committee has dealt with the rather tremendous task it has in front of it, namely the consideration of the bills to implement collective bargaining in the civil service, I would be pleased to discuss such a resolution with representative members of the parties opposite as well as with my cabinet colleagues, whose approval I must obtain before putting such a resolution on the order paper.
At no point in these proceedings have I attempted to get out of the minister more than I feel he promised. He made it very clear that the subject matter of my request, namely for the joint committee on the public service to discuss the pensions of retired civil servants, would have to come after we have considered the four bills referred to it. We have finished one of them, namely, the pension integration bill. The other three bills relate to the question of collective bargaining in the civil service and they are still before that committee.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It will obviously take some weeks, it may be fall, before we complete the work on the collective bargaining in the civil service, but it was my hope that the minister might meet the suggestion I made on June 27, namely that an appropriate term of reference might be drafted in order that those who are interested might know that this important question will be discussed by that committee.
The reason I suggested to the minister that he might discuss the wording of the term of reference with representatives of the various parties is that usually when something is done this way there is no debate on the floor of this house on such a motion. If there were an all-party agreement on such a term of reference it could be brought before the house some night just before closing time; it could be passed and then those who are interested would know that pensions of retired civil servants would be discussed in the committee.
I do not suggest, when I say this, that there is any question about the minister's promise. He is a man of his word. But I should be glad if before the recess, which will come along

one of these days, he would confirm that this matter of pensions paid to retired civil servants and their widows can and will be discussed by the joint committee when it has finished its consideration of the other three bills.


Edgar John Benson: I would simply say that I stand behind everything I have said in this respect. I personally have no objection to this matter going to the committee when it has completed the considerable amount of work presently before it. At the time I first answered the hon. member on this point there were four bills to be dealt with. Indeed I would hope that when we have completed supply we could quickly move to discuss item 51 on the order paper, so that we might have three items open. But when those three important measures have been disposed of, namely the bill with respect to collective bargaining in the public service, the Financial Administration Act and the new public service act, I would certainly be most pleased to see that the matter of which the hon. member has spoken is brought before the committee.
I do not believe I can give any further assurance than this-the assurance that I personally would like to see this matter discussed when the other important and urgent matters have been cleared up. However, as I stated earlier, I am not committing the government. I am merely saying that I personally am in favour of having this question discussed, and I leave the matter open.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for his words of confirmation. He has stated his own position as a minister with respect to this matter and I dare to believe, and I dare to hope, that his cabinet colleagues will back him up when the time comes.
With respect to his suggestion that in a moment or two we might deal with order 51, I am sure we would all agree to that. It calls for concurrence in a Senate amendment to the pension integration bill, the whole purport of which is simply to correct two words in the French version of the bill. I am sure we would agree to do that and then we would be one step further on toward dealing with the pensions of retired civil servants.


Edgar John Benson: If we had the consent of the house we could get that off the order paper immediately after supply. I repeat that this would be possible if the house were to give unanimous consent.
July 11. 1966


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-226 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['We shall.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Edgar John Benson: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-
['the second reading of the bill.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe I am correct in assuming the minister gave the usual undertaking about this bill at an earlier stage?


Edgar John Benson: I gave the usual undertaking at the resolution stage before the somewhat lengthy debate which later took place, and I would simply confirm the usual undertaking with respect to it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to H inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, July 11. 1966.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Emmett M. Hall, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 11th of July, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General.
Pensions PENSIONS


CORRELATION OF VARIOUS PLANS WITH CANADA PENSION PLAN-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
Edgar John Benson: the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. C-193, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act and the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the record the minister might indicate what it is that this amendment does.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was being considered by the committee, the committee recommended a change in two words in the French version of the bill, and when the bill passed the house it was with that amendment changing the two words in the French version. When the law officers of the crown saw that the amended words were not good French they recommended that they be converted back to the original version. The Senate agreed to that, and also agreed to leave the problem of complete translation of this bill, along with that of all other bills, to the committee which is dealing with the preparatory work for the Revised Statutes of Canada. The amendment does not change the purport or meaning of the bill in any way.


John George Diefenbaker: What are the two words?


Edgar John Benson: The words "fonction publique" were substituted for "service public". It was then found that service public and fonction publique did not mean the same thing and so it was necessary to convert back to the original translation, with the understanding that the whole problem of translating this particular idea would be looked into by the committee dealing with revision of the statutes.


John George Diefenbaker: How did that go through a cabinet with so many outstanding French Canadians in it?


Edgar John Benson: I would simply like to tell the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES

July 11. 1966
Labour Conditions
Diefenbaker) that it did not go through the cabinet. It was the committee which recommended this particular change of words, and their recommendation was adopted by the house. The cabinet then took a look at it and, with all the good French Canadians in the cabinet they found these words were not very good. They referred them to the law officers of the crown, who agreed, and so now we have the words reverting to the original version as agreed to by this very efficient cabinet.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the second reading of Bill No. C-215, respecting certain conditions of employment of dock workers at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better way to introduce the motion that this bill be read a second time than to read the preamble to it:
Whereas the processes of free collective bargaining and of mediation between representatives of employing shipping companies using the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec and of dock workers at those ports have been successful in producing agreement on wages and most of the other issues in dispute at the time of the strike of such dock workers that began in the month of May, 1966, and, in the report of the mediator appointed to mediate the issues then in dispute, it was recommended that an industrial inquiry commission be appointed under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to inquire into certain matters on which agreement was not reached and to report its conclusions thereon to the Minister of Labour at the earliest possible date;
And whereas an industrial inquiry commission to inquire into those certain matters has been appointed under the said act, and it is in the national interest that the conclusions of the said commission with respect thereto be carried into effect without delay following receipt of the report of the said commission, by the incorporation of those conclusions in the terms of settlement that were entered into following the settlement of the other issues involved in the dispute and in any collective agreements entered into pursuant to those terms of settlement.
The collective agreement under which the dock workers at the three ports worked for a period of nearly three years prior to May of this year, actually expired on December 31, 1965. Prior to its expiration, in fact in late October of last year, the unions concerned

served notice of their intention to insist on changes in the agreement when the time came to negotiate.
It is of some significance that other locals of the International Longshoremen's Association represent the dock workers in the cities of Halifax and Saint John. The traffic on the St. Lawrence being closed in the early part of 1966, and the Port of Halifax being open, the Shipping Federation of Canada agreed with the Halifax local on the terms of a new collective agreement, and negotiations were opened with the bargaining representatives of the local in Saint John, New Brunswick. The new Halifax agreement provides that members of that union will receive any greater benefits that may be given to the St. Lawrence ports members as a result of subsequent negotiations.
On or about January 31 of this year the International Longshoremen's Association made application on behalf of the unions in the three St. Lawrence ports for the appointment of a conciliation officer to mediate their disputes. A series of meetings, upwards of 20 in number, took place between the bargaining representatives of the locals in the three ports and the shipping federation.
These meetings began in or about the early part of February and they continued well into the month of March. A long list of requests was presented by the longshoremen's association. Some counter proposals were submitted by the shipping federation. At these 20 odd meetings that were held in February and March several, though not all of these issues were discussed at some length, and I might say that the requests involved both monetary and non-monetary items.
About the end of March, following the breakdown of negotiations between the parties, the unions made application to me as Minister of Labour for conciliation services, and on April 4 I appointed a conciliator to mediate the matters in dispute. On April 15 the conciliation officer reported to me by telegram that there was considerable unrest in the port of Montreal, and that there was the likelihood of a wildcat strike. He recommended that a conciliation board be established immediately.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
On the same day, April 15, I established a board as requested. The parties were notified by telegram of this fact and were asked to nominate their representative member to the board. Four days later a wildcat strike took place in the Port of Montreal, ostensibly over
July 11, 1966



the automobile parking privileges granted the longshoremen at that port. In fairness, Mr. Speaker, I might say that there probably were other reasons such as the delay factor in making progress with the negotiations. In any event the wildcat strike did occur. I asked Mr. Poirier, the conciliation officer, to intervene to see what he could do to have the men return to work.
In the meantime, on April 20 the Shipping Federation nominated its member on the conciliation board. On April 25 the International Longshoremen's Association nominated its representative on the board. In the meantime partly through the good offices of the conciliation officer, the men had returned to work on April 21. On April 29, the two representative members were formally appointed as members of the board and they were asked to agree on the third member who would be chairman.
On May 10, some 12 days later, the representatives of the two parties, the longshoremen's association and the shipping federation, agreed upon Mr. Justice Claude Prevost as the third member and chairman. On that same day a second illegal or wildcat strike occured at the Port of Montreal. The shipping federation then took the position that the union members should call off the illegal strike as a condition precedent to the continuation of the conciliation proceedings.
Hon. members will recall that at that time I expressed concern over this situation and actually expressed disapproval of the action of the federation, since I thought it was important that the conciliation board should proceed with a minimum of delay. I think I should reiterate, because of the tense situation which developed, that just prior to establishment of this conciliation board with a conciliation officer on the job-he had been there about two weeks-a walkout or illegal strike had occurred and the men had returned to work on April 31, only to walk out again on May 10. I mention these walkouts because they added to the tension and helped create a very difficult atmosphere for any conciliation or mediation proceedings.
I am not saying where the fault lay; usually there is fault on both sides in cases of that kind. Whatever the reason, because of the attitudes of the parties the conciliation board was not able to deal with any of the issues in dispute. They heard no evidence of any kind, no representations, and so reported to me on May 17. On the following day, May 18, I appointed His Honour Judge Rene Lippe,
Labour Conditions
chairman of the trustees of the Maritime Transportation Association, as a mediator in this dispute. I think as every member in this house knows Judge Lippe is an experienced and able administrator with a broad experience in labour-management disputes.
I appealed to both parties to get together with Judge Lippe with a view to working out a settlement of the issues. He held several meetings with the parties during the period May 18 to June 13 inclusive, During this period he submitted several interim reports to me, some of which I passed on to the house. His final report was submitted to me on June 23 and this report was tabled by my parliamentary secretary on July 4.
As pointed out in the mediator's report, in the final stages of negotiation the crucial issues in the dispute were the size of the wage increase, job security, calls and recalls on the one hand and increased productivity and related matters on the other. From meetings which took place in Ottawa during the later stages of negotiation, June 10, 11, 12 and 13, it was obvious to everyone who had given serious tnought to the matter that it would be absolutely impossible to get the shipping federation to agree to the very substantial increases in wages for 1966 and 1967, and the other benefits requested by the union, without assurance to them that they might expect some increased productivity at least during the year 1967.
In the early stages of negotiation the shipping federation had admitted that they were prepared to forgo any increase during 1966, but they thought that if they were going to be asked for further substantial increases to take effect in 1967, there should be some assurance of increased productivity in return.
I think I can summarize the position of the shipping federation by saying they simply were not prepared to agree to any increases for the second year without some assurance of increased productivity during the latter part of the two year term. I might refer to one of the documents that was tabled by me on Friday last. It is headed Terms of Settlement for the Two-Year Collective Agreement between the International Longshoremen's locals in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec and The Shipping Federation of Canada. The first paragraph of the agreement reads:
1. Each employee will receive 40c. for every hour worked as of January 1, 1966, made up as follows:-
20c. increase per man-hour worked retroactive to January 1, 1966, and effective up to but not including the day work resumes; and

July 11, 1966
Labour Conditions
20c. per man-hour worked retroactive to January 1, 1966, effective up to but not including the day work resumes, in compensation for improvements in productivity.
From date of resumption of work the above increases shall be applied on overtime as well.
That is, there would be no increase on the overtime prior to the date of resumption of work. Paragraph 2. has a similar provision:
An additional 15c. per hour increase in wages to be effective January 1, 1967; and a further 25c. per hour increase in wages to be effective on May 1, 1967 also in compensation for improvements in productivity. These increases shall be applied on overtime as well.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In the interests of brevity, it might be well for me to refer to the report of the mediator, which hon. members have had the opportunity to peruse, since I filed it in this house a week ago. On page 2 the mediator reports as follows:
Basically, the request of the association was:
(A)	A 50 cents hourly increase retroactive to January 1st 1966;
(B)	A further hourly increase of 50 cents for the year 1967;
(C)	No modification of the work load until at the earliest January 1st 1968.
In addition, there was presented by the association a long list of further requests which, for the purpose of brevity I will qualify as fringe benefits, although this expression is not perfect in this instance. These requests were both of a monetary and of a non-monetary nature.
On the other hand, the stand of the Federation was that they are engaged in a competitive business and that any labour contract must take into consideration the economics of the business. In that light, the Federation stated that they were not in a position to make an offer as to the hourly wages and other benefits unless and until the question of the work load has been determined. Reference was made at that time by the Federation to the contract entered into in Halifax between the I.L.A. Longshoremen local and the Federation.
It was easy to determine on that first day that the parties were really too far apart to reach an agreement. I, therefore, decided to meet with the parties separately in an effort to mediate the issues for the immediate future, leaving for further negotiations a long term contract which would expire in 1968, if not 1969.
These meetings of the commissioner with each of the parties took place daily until Saturady the 21st, mclusive, at which time I submitted to the parties the following recommendations:-
I will not go into the details of the next two and a half pages of the report, but I should like to say that the mediator submitted to both sides these recommendations since the shipping federation was prepared to agree to a substantial increase in 1966 but not to a further increase in 1967. He suggested that the unions accept the

increase which he proposed for 1966 and that an industrial inquiry commission be set up immediately to look into the matter of uroductivity and related matters. The parties would then have the benefit of this report, and he felt that within a relatively short time, certainly before the end of the year, these matters could be subjects for a negotiated contract for 1967-68 or possibly 1967, 1968 and 1969.
The mediator, continuing with his report at page 5 said:
Owing to the urgence of the situation, it has been impossible for the undersigned to give proper consideration to the question of reduction of crews. However, because of the importance of this issue, the undersigned recommends as soon as possible the appointment by the Minister of Labour of the government of Canada of an industrial inquiry commission to study this problem.
Without criticizing the past conduct of either party, the undersigned, pursuant to discussions with said parties, is of the opinion that it would be desirable that negotiations relative to the next collective agreement be initiated immediately.
The industrial inquiry commission who will study the problem of reduction in crews could also deal with this problem of negotiations.
This passage refers to wages and fringe benefits accompanying reorganization and improvements. This proposal was submitted to the shipping federation and to the unions but the unions did not accept it. In fact, their officers did not recommend it and they gave as one of their reasons that they did not want the contract to expire on December 31, 1966 only to find themselves in the midst of another serious dispute in the year of our centennial.
The union leaders told me that out of respect for the mediator they did call a meeting and submitted the proposal. They did not recommend it, however, and it was turned down. That was the proposal for the interim settlement for the year 1966 only. I might say that this recommendation for an interim solution was accepted by the shipping federation.
This turn down took place on Tuesday, the 25th, at the mass meeting, and the association rejected the mediator's recommendation for a temporary settlement. On Wednesday, the 25th, the parties were requested by telegram to meet again with the mediator. This they did and on that occasion the President of the International Longshoremen's Union from New York, Mr. T. W. Gleason, came to Montreal and met with the mediator and the representatives of the union. There was a caucus held of the shipping federation members and they made a further offer which is set out at pages 7 and 8 of the mediator's
July 11, 1966

report. I am not going to go into detail on it because it was not accepted.
On May 26 the unions made an offer which they referred to as their minimum proposals. There was some reduction in what they asked for. Instead of asking for 50 cents an hour in 1966 and another 50 cents an hour in 1967 they agreed to accept 40 cents an hour in 1966 and a further 40 cents an hour in 1967. These were the basic increases in the hourly rates, although there were fringe benefits and other items involved.
On May 27 that proposal was submitted to the shipping federation. On the following morning the shipping federation said it would not accept this proposal and again reiterated its stand with respect to a definite assurance that in the second year there had to be some assurance of increased productivity. At that time the mediator got in touch with me and presented one of his interim reports. He suggested that I invite representatives of both sides to Ottawa to discuss the basic provisions, and explore the possibility of settlement on the strength of an assurance that an industrial inquiry commission would be set up to inquire into the crucial issues. He indicated that such a course might lead to a settlement.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
As I have already advised the house on an earlier occasion, in company with two of my colleagues, the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau), and my deputy minister I met with the representatives of both parties here, and their legal advisers, in the later afternoon of May 27. Extended discussions took place. The memorandum used as a basis for such discussions contained the minimum demands put forward by the longshoremen on May 26.
On that occasion I suggested to the two parties that since it seemed that agreement was possible on most of the issues-I would say over 40 of the 50-odd issues that were involved-and agreement seemed almost certain on all but perhaps five or six of these items, they might agree to establish an independent commission and they could choose their own commissioner to inquire into the possibilities of increased productivity and related matters. I will not go into detail, but in the course of the discussion arguments were put forward that the average crew, or gang, strength in the port of Montreal is 18-I refer, of course, to a longshoremen's gang-but in Trois-Rivieres it is 16, in Halifax it is 16,
Labour Conditions
in Toronto it is 15 and on the west coast, in Vancouver and other ports, I am told that it is substantially less than that.
The longshoremen were concerned with job security and said it would have to be shown conclusively, or beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were not going to suffer through some whim on the part of the employers; it would have to be established. So my suggestion was that this inquiry commission could hear the evidence of both sides. The commissioner would be whom they would agree upon, or if they could not agree on one I, as Minister of Labour, after getting their advice would appoint one, that each side would have an assessor who would be there to assist the commissioner, and he could have as long as he felt necessary to inquire into the situation.
I might say that at this time, in the early morning of May 28, there was no suggestion of any legislative enactment to make the findings of the commission binding. The suggestion was that this be a voluntary arrangement between the two parties. Discussions lasted several hours and we adjourned in the wee, small hours of Saturday, May 28. The next morning the representative of the longshoremen got in touch with me and said, "I am not saying we will agree"

to the appointment of such a commission-"but there would be no point in our agreeing to it if the employers are not going to come along and meet what we refer to as the balance of our minimum terms". I said that I would speak to the employers, if he would discuss it with his people. This was on Saturday. We met the following day in Montreal. My colleague the Minister of Industry and my parliamentary secretary were with me. We had interesting, useful meetings. There is no doubt that there was a considerable narrowing of the issues, but the negotiations broke down again in the wee, small hours of Monday the 30th, this time largely on the issue of job security.
The international vice president of the longshoremen's association said that he was concerned with job security; he was not so much concerned with an inquiry. There might be an inquiry, there might not be; but he did not want the employers taking a position that was going to throw out of work bona fide longshoremen who had worked for an appreciable length of time. There were arguments about university students, taxi drivers and others who might not be bona fide longshoremen. In the course of the next day or two these points were straightened out by an exchange of wires; but when the

July 11. 1966
Labour Conditions
mediator brought the parties together again in late May-or it might have been early June-the unions then stated that they could not go along with the proposal for a commission. They made their position clear; they said, "If the government wants to establish a commission, it can." Other alternatives were explored by the mediator and, as shown in his report, on about June 10 or 11 he got in touch with me again and suggested another meeting in Ottawa.
This time they came to Ottawa on Saturday, June 11. My colleagues the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who had an interest in this matter because of the harbour board docks in Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), who had had a broad experience in this field, the President of the Privy Council, my deputy minister and I met with the two sides.
The first meeting began in the middle of the morning. It was then said, according to the report-the mediator was there-that apparently a deadlock or an impasse had occurred. I then invited suggestions for a solution and made the statement that the issues could not stay deadlocked forever. Then I made the suggestion, which had actually originated with the mediator, that consideration might be given, if they could agree on every other point except increased productivity and job security, to refer those issues to the commissioner.
At the meeting on the morning of Saturday, June 11, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Jodoin, was present and in the course of the meeting not only I but my colleague the Minister of Transport- at least the two of us-said, "It looks as if there might be a solution if we were to establish a commission and agree that its findings might be made binding on these two points."


John George Diefenbaker: Just "might be"?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Might be made binding. This was a proposal we were putting forward, that if they would agree that its findings might be binding, a solution might be found. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress said that the congress was opposed to compulsory arbitration. The spokesman for the longshoremen's association, their solictor or legal adviser, said that they were opposed-obviously there had been a change of heart in the intervening two weeks-to compulsory arbitration. He also

said, "But if the government does set up a commission and the government is prepared to take the responsibility to make its findings binding, we will obey the law."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That was not surprising, because he was a lawyer.


John George Diefenbaker: Who made that statement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The lawyer for the longshoremen's association.


Mr. Graffley:: The plot thickens.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Cutler?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes; Mr. Cutler said, "If this is done, we will obey the law." I say that statement was made not only to me in response to a statement I made, but later to the Minister of Transport.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a very short question? I assume he is speaking about Mr. Cutler. In reply to a question by the minister as to what the association would do if such legislation were passed, Mr. Cutler said they would obey the law; is that what happened?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think I mentioned earlier that both Mr. Pickersgill and I had invited the longshoremen to speak quite freely. I might say that the shipping federation was not there. We asked if the longshoremen had any suggestions to make. Naturally they would have liked a contract continuing through to January 1, 1968 with an extra 40 cents next year and without any commitments on a change in productivity. There is no doubt about that phase of it in the early stages. However, when we asked them to bring forward any suggestions they might have, and they were not forthcoming, there were two occasions at which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and I said that it had been suggested we establish the commission and that we might make only the findings on these issues binding. Both he and I asked them for their reaction at different times, to which they answered: If you take that responsibility; set up the commission and pass the legislation; we will obey the law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did the minister take that as acquiescence to the proposal?
July 11, 1966


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will not say we took it as acquiescence at first, because the discussions continued for another 14 hours. There were further discussions in the afternoon during which there was no doubt as to their acquiescence to certain aspects of the proposal.
After the morning meeting we met again in the West Block, this time with simultaneous interpretation so that any of the longshoremen, who might not understand me, because my French is far from fluent, would know what I and others, said in the course of the discussions. I might say that the president of the Canadian Labour Congress said again that the congress was opposed to compulsory arbitration and that he wanted to make that fact clear.
The question was again asked, this time by Mr. Pickersgill, whether there was any other solution. We left the morning meeting at about 1.30 p.m. to meet with the shipping federation with whom we spent several hours in the afternoon. They insisted that an agreement be reached for the reorganization of longshoremen's gangs, new types of slings and other changes that might result in increased productivity. Eventually they did agree that if the government would take the responsibility for setting up the commission and agree to pass legislation, they would acquiesce in such a course and would agree to the second payment of 40 cents in 1967; 15 cents were paid on January 1 and 25 cents later in the year when the recommendations of the commission were implemented.
Other points were discussed at that meeting at which my colleagues and I, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Transport, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) and my deputy minister were present. We met later with the longshoremen and their legal adviser.


Michael Starr: Was the parliamentary secretary with you then?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Not on that occasion. He was at the earlier meeting in Montreal. I am sure it would have been very helpful if he had been there.


Michael Starr: He knows more about it than all the other ministers.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On the evening of Saturday, June 11 we spent several hours with the longshoremen discussing the matter. We explained to them that we had been able to convince the shipping federation that, if they
Labour Conditions
could not agree, the sensible way to settle this matter was to refer it to the commission whose findings on these two or three points would be made binding by legislation. I wish to assure this house that there is not the slightest doubt that this point was made clear to every longshoreman present at that meeting, including their lawyer. We were questioned about it back and forth over a period of several hours.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister another question? Was Mr. Jodoin present at the meeting with the longshoremen's association the night of June 11?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Jodoin was present at the morning session between roughly 11 a.m. and 1.30 in the afternoon. He then left for Toronto and was not present at the meetings held in the afternoon, the evening and early morning of the next day, Sunday.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question, as it is approaching ten o'clock? May I ask the minister on the basis of his long recital of the facts whether the house is to conclude that both sides, the shipping federation and the longshoremen representatives, agreed to compulsory arbitration?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker. As I said in answer to the right hon. gentleman a day or two ago, they avoided reference to compulsory arbitration, although Mr. Jodoin brought it up on one or two occasions. Other words were used, that there would be a hearing and that the findings on these two or three unsettled points would be made binding by legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: That is compulsory arbitration.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is a matter for judicial interpretation. I do not wish to argue with the right hon. gentleman. It may or may not be compulsory arbitration. It is a question of interpretation. In fairness to the longshoremen and their representatives I must say the longshoremen kept repeating that the government must take the responsibility for this, but they encouraged us to try to find a solution.


William Heward Grafftey: I wish you would.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: When we came back and told the longshoremen that the employers were prepared-to use a colloquialism-to buy a pig in a poke and take their chances on the

July 11, 1966
Labour Conditions
findings of a commission, I can assure you that several of them-I will not say all of them-expressed to me their sincere appreciation for what we had been able to do in that regard.
The negotiations continued for several hours and at one time we thought an agreement had been reached. We had actually prepared a press release which we thought could be used by both parties, but at the very last minute the negotiations broke down partly on the question of recalls.
The longshoremen get four hours for the first call-up and at least in the port of Montreal they get two for the first recall. They were asking for a four hour recall. At about four o'clock in the morning this point became of critical importance. It was impossible to resolve it and the negotiations broke off in the wee hours, at about 5.30 a.m.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the minister has only reached June 11 in his recount of the facts and I think the settlement date was much later, could we not call it ten o'clock and carry on the discussion tomorrow?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member know that the house has received a message that the Deputy to His Excellency will be expecting us very soon? Therefore in the circumstances we might continue with our business.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before the minister continues may I ask him this. Is the press release which was made ready for both parties on the early morning, I suppose, of June 12 in existence somewhere and, if so, could we be let in on it?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would hope so, Mr. Speaker; but since it was drafted after discussion with both parties, and it was never used I would not want to make the positive statement that it was used. However, I will look for it if it might be of any use. It was drafted over at the West Block at about five o'clock in the morning and we had been at it continuously since nine o'clock the previous morning. Comment has been made on the fact that I have only reached June 11, but actually I have covered the period from October 1965 to June 11. The settlement was reached on June 14, so we have about three days left.
We broke up at 5.30 a.m., all of us tired and disappointed. And no one was more disappointed than the minister-unless it was the longshoremen, who had hoped that there

was going to be a settlement reached, based on what the federation had agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General has been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act.
An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
An Act to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.
An Act to provide for the establishment of The Company of Young Canadians.
An Act to provide for the establishment of a Dairy Commission for Canada.
An Act to provide for the establishment of a Health Resources Fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions.
An Act to amend the Atlantic Development Board Act.
An Act respecting the construction by Canadian National Railway Company of a line of railway in the Province of Manitoba from the vicinity of Stall Lake on the Chisel Lake Subdivision of Canadian National Railways in a northeasterly direction for a distance of approximately 12 miles to a point in the vicinity of Osborne Lake in The Pas Mining District of that Province, and of a line of railway in the Province of Saskatchewan from the vicinity of Watrous on the Watrous Subdivision of the said Railways in a northeasterly direction for a distance of approximately 18 miles to a point in the vicinity of Guernsey in the Regina Mining District of that Province.
An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to transfer to the Provinces a proportion of the income tax payable by certain public utility companies.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An Act to incorporate Canadian Board of Missions of the Church of God (General Offices: Anderson. Indiana).
July 11, 1966
[Stage Direction]
An Act to incorporate The International Society of Endocrinology.
An Act to incorporate Mennonite Central Committee (Canada).
An Act respecting United Baptist Woman's Missionary Union of the Maritime Provinces.
An Act to incorporate Lutheran Church in America-Canada Section.
An Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act and the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson for the second reading of Bill No. C-215, respecting certain conditions of employment of dock workers at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec.
Business of the House
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think we can only digest so much. Perhaps we should consider what the minister has said and give him another opportunity to continue his statement at our next sitting.
I should now like to call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does anyone know whether tomorrow's business is as announced a few days ago, or has there been some change?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the business for tomorrow will be the following items on the order paper: item No. 82, the medicare resolution; item No. 81, second reading of Bill No. C-216, the income tax amendments; item No. 61, Bill No. C-194, in relation to the National Arts Centre and item No. 80, second reading of Bill No. C-215, the bill now before the house. That will be the business for tomorrow, but not necessarily in that order.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
23033-476J
[Stage Direction]
July 11. 1966
Llijc	",*

[Stage Direction]
Approved revised report of federal-provincial standing committee on concept OF STUDENTS' NEEDS
The premises on which the concepts of need are based include the following:
(a)	The responsibility for the costs of postsecondary education to the individual student remains primarily with the parent (guardian or immediate family) and/orthe student.
(b)	Government at all levels are interested in supplementing family-student resources and resources available through educational institutions, where needed to ensure that all qualified students have the opportunity to reach their educational potential.
(c)	It is desirable that the concepts and criteria used by governments and institutions in determining the need for loans, bursaries and other forms of assistance to students should be co-ordinated within a province by a provincial authority.
(d)	It is desirable to co-ordinate among the provinces the concepts and criteria of need applied in administering federal assistance in this field.
2.	Both the costs of education and the resources available to the student should be taken into account in developing the concepts of need.
The following criteria should be employed:
A.	COSTS OF EDUCATION
The following costs should be taken into account in determining need:
(1)	Fees-All compulsory fees of the educational institution.
(2)	Prescribed Books and Instruments.
(3)	Board and Lodging During the Academic Year.
(i)	Institutional Residence-as charged by the institution.
(ii)	Board and lodging away from home based on average costs in the region concerned.
(iii)	Students living at home will be given a cost allowance of 40-50% of the costs allowed for board and lodging for students living away from home.
(4)	A Reasonable Allowance for Clothing, Laundry, Dry-Cleaning and Recreational Cost.
(5)	Transportation.
(a)	From permanent residence in Canada to institution in Canada-
Two return trips a year, the cost not to exceed the equivalent of the cost of the most economical means based on costs of public transportation.
(b)	From permanent residence in Canada to institution outside of Canada-
An allowance which will equal the lesser of one return trip a year by the most economical transportation, or a maximum amount established by the provinces.
(c)	A Reasonable Allowance for Local Transportation.
(6)	Premiums for Hospital and Medical Prepayment Plans.
B.	RESOURCES TO MEET COSTS OF EDUCATION
(1)	Resources of Parents/Guardian of Dependent Students
A single student engaged in post-secondary education below the first university degree and who has not been previously financially independent through employment for a period of at least one year is to be defined as being dependent.
Parents' income and assets are to be taken into account.
All application forms will have sections which elicit information concerning the parents' gross income, including for selfemployed people gross income and expenses of a business or farm, and in all cases a statement of assets and liabilities.
(2)	Students' Own Resources
(a)	Summer Earnings
(b)	All Assets
(i)	Car (state value)
(ii)	Other assets
(c)	Earnings During the Academic Year
(d)	Scholarships, Bursaries and Tuition Grants
(3)	Married Students' Resources
The resources of a married student shall be the income available to that married student and his spouse less a predetermined annual allowance for basic family maintenance costs, depending on the size of the family, less the board and lodging allowances referred to in A (3) (iii) above.
July 11. 1966
[Stage Direction]
3.	General Recommendations
(1)	Where an applicant feels that the award is inadequate or circumstances have changed since the award was made, the applicant may either appeal his case or re-apply to the provincial authority or to an institution delegated by that authority in accordance with the procedure established by the province concerned.
(2)	A declaration shall be made in the application by the student, and where applicable by the parent or guardian, knowing it to be of the same force and effect as if made under oath by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
(3)	These premises and criteria are acceptable to provincial and federal governments, and the federal and all provincial authorities
will co-operate in giving full publicity to them.
4.	Continuing attention will be given to developing a common application form for use in the provinces.
The above report was accepted on April 29, 1966, by a full federal-provincial meeting, including representatives of all participating provinces and the federal government.
R. W. Dalton, Chairman.
Assistant Deputy Minister (Education), Department of Education,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
C.	L. Read, Secretary.
Director, Government Finance Division, Department of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
[Stage Direction]
July 11. 1966


[Stage Direction]
During the past three days substantial progress has been made on the process of closer consultation and cooperation among the Commonwealth countries of the western Hemisphere. This development holds great promise for the future and will bring early practical benefits to all the participants. The Heads of Government participating in the present Conference are determined to continue and strengthen the fruitful collaboration among them which has been begun in Ottawa this week.
2.	At the Conference Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Trinidad and Tobago were represented by their Heads of Government and British Honduras by the Minister of Natural Resources and Trade. Britain was represented by an observer and by special invitation the University of the West Indies was also represented.
3.	The Heads of Government took note that their Conference opened on the forty-first anniversary of the signature of the Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement.
4.	The Conference welcomed the positive outcome of constitutional discussions for Barbados and the working out of special relationships between Britain and Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia and St. Vincent.
Trade
5.	A review of the special trade and economic relations among the Commonwealth Carribean-Canada group of countries was a central feature of the Conference. Ministers were unanimous in the great value they attach to maintaining and further strengthening the special trade ties between Canada and the Commonwealth countries of the Car-ribean. To this end, a special Protocol to the 1925 Trade Agreement has been approved by the Conference and signed by all participating countries. This Protocol provides for continuing close consultation and co-operation within the Commonwealth Caribbean-Canada group of countries.
Through the further strengthening of their trade and economic ties, this group of countries can best promote their own trading interests and the contribution they can make to the strengthening of international trade and economic relations throughout the world. The report of the Special Committee on Trade was unanimously adopted by the Conference and is attached.
6.	It was agreed that a study of the question of a free trade area between the Commonwealth Caribbean and Canada might be made jointly by appropriate institutions to be designated by the Trade and Economic Committee.
Aid
7.	The Heads of Government agreed that they shared an obligation in common to ensure the most effective use of the limited resources available in the Caribbean area and that an increased effort should be made to mobilize additional resources to accelerate the pace of economic development in the Commonwealth Caribbean area. The Canadian Government announced that it was Canada's intention to strengthen its aid efforts in the countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean, with which Canada had special links. These countries had demonstrated their ability to use available resources effectively to meet their urgent needs.
8.	The Canadian Government indicated that its basic aid programme for the Commonwealth Caribbean countries will be generally made more flexible in its terms, and over each of the next five years will reach at least the level of the enlarged programme for the current fiscal year of a total of more than $65 million for the period. The proposals for special aid for the Universities of the West Indies and Guyana and for a Caribbean Broadcasting Service would raise the minimum figure to $75 million for the five-year period. With good and practicable projects the Commonwealth Caribbean part of the expanding Canadian aid programme for all purposes will rise substantially above that figure.
July 11. 1966
[Stage Direction]
9.	Reference was made to the problem of mobilizing in the area adequate financial resources to meet all of the local costs associated with economic development, and Canada indicated its willingness, in appropriate cases, to finance a portion of local costs of development projects.
10.	Particular attention was devoted to the need for increased levels of assistance for the non-independent territories. In this connection, it was agreed that the report of the tripartite economic survey of Barbados, and the Leeward and Windward Islands, conducted by Britain, Canada and the United States, should be useful in promoting co-ordinated development efforts in the Caribbean and in mobilizing additional foreign resources to assist in fulfilling the potential for development in the dependent territories. The Conference agreed that further serious study of the report should be undertaken without delay and that meetings of those governments directly concerned might usefully be convened in the fall to consider the implications of the report and of the expected report on British Honduras for longer range co-ordinated aid efforts.
11.	It was also agreed to study the possibility of establishing a financial institution for regional development which might be used as a method of financing projects of particular interest to the smaller areas, as well as projects which would benefit the region as a whole.
12.	Special consideration was devoted to programmes of assistance to the University of the West Indies and the University of Guyana. Memoranda of Understanding on these programs were signed on July 8. The texts are attached as Annexes II and III.
Transport and Communications
13.	The Heads of Government discussed matters relating to Transport and Communications both between Canada and the Caribbean and within the Caribbean area. The needs of the area for improved regional air services were reviewed and the technical cooperation of the Canadian authorities in meeting these needs was offered. Many of the governments represented the need for improvements of airport facilities and the Canadian Government agreed that these were matters which would be examined. The need for multilateral discussion with a view to the conclusion of air services agreements between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean countries was discussed and the desirability
of consultation and the greatest degree of mutual cooperation in the negotiation of bilateral arrangements with other countries was stressed.
14.	The restoration of direct shipping services between Canada and the Caribbean area was urged by several delegations and it was agreed by the Canadian authorities that this matter should be fully investigated in the light of its possible long term contribution to the promotion of trade. Reference was made to the international telecommunications network in being and in prospect. With regard to the operation of the telecommunication services within the islands, Canada would be pleased to provide technical training and advice within the context of the External Aid programme. The Canadian government offered to co-operate in working out and underwriting arrangements for first class air mail service at surface rates between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean countries to be established as soon as technical arrangements could be made.
Migration
15.	In the discussion on migration the Heads of the Caribbean Governments took note of the fact that immigrants from the Commonwealth Caribbean were eligible for entry into Canada on as favourable a basis as immigrants from any other parts of the world and that migration from the area to Canada had increased in recent years. However, they emphasized the need for continued and expanded migration opportunities for their people. The Canadian Government announced that Canada was prepared to keep its door open to qualified immigrants from the Commonwealth Caribbean on a completely non-discriminatory basis. The experimental movement of seasonal farm labour to Canada from Jamaica during the current year was reviewed and Canada indicated that if the experiment proved successful and there was a continued need for outside labour in future years consideration would be given to broadening the program to include other Caribbean countries. Canada also announced a 100 percent increase in the special household service worker movement from the Caribbean to Canada, and the extension of the Canadian Immigration Assisted Passage Loan Scheme to immigrants from Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean.
16.	The Government of Guyana explained that with accelerated development of Guyana's resources it would be possible for Guyana to absorb migrants from the Carib-
[Stage Direction]
July 11, 1966
bean countries, and announced its willingness to make available immediately for settlement by Guyanese and other West Indians selected areas of known potential. The Heads of Government agreed that the machinery established for the continuation of joint action on matters discussed at the Conference should examine these plans as early as possible.
Other Economic Questions
17.	The Heads of Government considered ways of promoting private investment in the Commonwealth Caribbean. They noted that there were no restrictions on the flow of Canadian private capital to the area but expressed concern at the effect which the absence of double taxation agreements could have on that flow. In the context of the relations between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean countries, the Canadian government indicated its readiness to enter into discussions leading to agreements with interested Commonwealth countries in the area to avoid double taxation.
18.	They also discussed possibilities for developing the tourist industry in the Caribbean and as part of the process, as indicated in the report of the Trade Committee, the Canadian Government undertook to give consideration to the suggestion that enlarged duty-free exemptions be allowed to Canadians entering from Commonwealth Caribbean countries.
International Questions of Common Interest
19.	The Commonwealth countries in the Western Hemisphere emphasized the great value they attach to their relations with the United States and the many countries in Latin America which make up the membership of the Organization of American States. Those participants in the Conference whose countries would be eligible for membership in that Organization indicated their intention either to carry out a joint study of the question or to give one another the benefit of national studies which were being made. They also expect to consult together on this question in the months ahead.
20.	There was a thorough discussion of the implications of the continuing situation in Rhodesia. The Heads of Government noted that unless there was an early solution of this grave issue the future of the Commonwealth as a multi-racial association would clearly be endangered. They expressed the hope that such an early solution will be announced by the British Government at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
21.	The Conference endorsed the resolution adopted by the Commonwealth Caribbean Heads of Government at their recent meeting in Barbados affirming their fullest support for the self-determination of British Honduras in accordance with the wishes of the people of the country.
Cultural Relations
22.	The Conference recognized the desirability of further strengthening the cultural ties between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean. It was decided to establish appropriate machinery for strengthening such ties with a view to giving the Canadian public the opportunity of seeing in their own country the expression by West Indian artists of indigenous Caribbean art forms such as the dance and the steelband and to making the West Indian public familiar with Canadian artistic achievements particularly in the field of the performing arts. The Government of Canada also indicated its willingness to assist with the establishment of broadcasting facilities serving the entire region of the Commonwealth Caribbean and consultations will now take place among the broadcasting authorities of the participating governments.
Methods of Following Up The Canada-Caribbean Talks
23.	In keeping with the intention of Heads of Government that the consultations instituted at this Conference should be continued, it was agreed that a meeting of the governments represented should be held, at a date to be fixed and at an agreed venue in the West Indies, for a general discussion of Commonwealth Caribbean-Canada relationships and to review progress. In the meantime to ensure that effective follow-up action is taken on the matters discussed at this Conference it was agreed that, in addition to normal bilateral consultations, the High Commissioners of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries in Ottawa should consult jointly with Canadian officials regarding the timing and location of the first meeting of the Trade and Economic Committee and the form of other consultative arrangements for the future.

[Stage Direction]
The Trade Committee established by the Conference on July 6 has held three sessions.
2.	We reviewed a range of trade and commodity problems in the light of the Trade
July 11, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Agreement of 1925 and of developments since then, including the prospects for the Kennedy Round of Tariff negotiations.
3.	The Committee agreed that the 1925 Agreement continued to provide a valuable basis for our trade relations. In some respects, however, there is need to adapt the Agreement to current circumstances and requirements. The discussion of trade and commodity problems covered a number of issues of concern to participating countries, including problems relating to the trade in rum, rice, sugar, bananas, citrus and other fruits, vegetables and spices, wheat, salted fish and manufactured goods.
4.	The Commonwealth Caribbean countries expressed particular concern about possible damage to their trade over any loss of their present preferential position in the Canadian market and the importance, particularly for the smaller territories, of improved shipping facilities for the development of their exports to Canada.
5.	Considerable attention was given to the problems faced by the Commonwealth Caribbean sugar producers in their sales of sugar to Canada. Canadian representatives offered, subject to the necessary international waivers, to extend to Commonwealth Caribbean countries and territories collectively a tariff-free quota for raw sugar, the quantity being equal to the average volume of Commonwealth Caribbean sales to Canada over the past five years. This was intended to provide an opportunity for them to maintain their traditional sales to the Canadian market and enhance the return to their producers. In addition, the Canadian representative indicated their willingness to work towards an effective International Sugar Agreement with a price range that would yield a fair return to producers and would be equitable to consumers.
The Canadian representatives indicated their expectation that the price benefits of the elimination of the need to pay the BP Tariff rate of .290 a cwt would accrue to Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers. It is not the intention of the Canadian authorities to allocate the tariff-free quota between Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers. Any arrangements in this regard would be for the Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers to work out among themselves.
6.	A number of Commonwealth Caribbean countries emphasized their difficulties in developing their exports of bananas to the Canadian market. Several countries are
heavily dependent on bananas for their employment and export earnings. The special importance of shipping facilities was underlined in developing this trade. It was agreed to conduct a joint study of this important item at an early date.
7.	Representatives of several Commonwealth Caribbean countries referred to problems relating to the valuation for duty of their exports of manufactured goods to Canada. It appeared that their concerns might in part be met by use of the new Section 37A of the Canadian Customs Act. This was intended to deal with inadvertent discrimination in Canadian customs law in connection with imports from countries with compact domestic markets in which goods are normally sold in small quantities or direct to the retail level.
8.	Several members of the Committee referred to difficulties they had encountered in exporting rum to Canada, specifically problems involving labelling, the content provisions of the Canadian Excise Act, advertising restrictions, provincial listing and mark-up practices and the tariff treatment of normal rum containers. The Canadian representatives undertook to consider amending the labelling requirements and to use their good offices with the Provincial authorities respecting these matters for which they have responsibility.
9.	Several members of the Committee referred to the difficulties involved in the Canadian requirement that, in order to receive preferential treatment, goods must be shipped direct to the Canadian port from a Commonwealth country. Canadian representatives indicated the Canadian Government's willingness to waive Article VII of the 1925 Agreement on this point.
10.	In the context of the development of tourism, several Committee members asked whether consideration might be given to enlarged duty-free exemptions for Canadians returning from Commonwealth Caribbean countries. The Canadian representatives undertook to give consideration to this suggestion.
11.	The Canadian representatives referred to their concern about instances where certain Canadian producers and manufacturers were being excluded or restricted in their access to traditional markets and expressed their desire to avoid damage to these established trading interests. Particular reference was made to Canadian exports of salted fish
[Stage Direction]
July 11. 1966
and wheat flour. The Commonwealth Caribbean countries concerned indicated their intention to ensure a fair opportunity for Canadian trade in their markets.
12.	The Committee recognized that it was not possible in the short time available to resolve all outstanding problems. It agreed that it is highly desirable to maintain close consultations on trade and economic matters and decided to this end to recommend that, in addition to present facilities for consultation on a bilateral basis, a Standing Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs should be established to meet from time to time at Ministerial or official level as may be appropriate.
13.	The Committee considered a draft protocol to give effect to the conclusions reached. The proposed text of a protocol is attached and is recommended by the Committee for approval by the Conference and for signature. The text of the Canadian Government Proposal on Sugar is also attached.
14.	The Committee expressed its dissatisfaction with the offer on tropical products recently tabled by the European Economic Community in connection with the Kennedy Round trade negotiations in Genera. They also took note of the suggestion that the Caribbean Commonwealth country interests in the lowering of the EEC tariffs on rum and alumina be kept in mind by Canada in its negotiations with the Community.
15.	The discussions in the Trade Committee were carried out in a most friendly and constructive atmosphere.

[Stage Direction]
Recognizing the important changes which have taken place in their trade and commercial relations since the negotiation of the Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement of 1925;
Recognizing the desirability of close cooperation and collaboration in the development of their respective economies in order to facilitate the most efficient utilization of resources and the maximum development of mutually advantageous trade;
Taking into account the urgent economic development needs of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries and the key importance of trade to the raising of their standards of living and the progressive development of their economies;
Taking into account the common interest of the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean and Canada in ensuring a fair and remunerative return at' stable prices for exports of primary products of particular interest to them and the urgent need of these countries to diversify their exports:
Antigua, the Bahamas, Barbados, British Honduras, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Trinidad and Tobago agree as follows:
1.	To examine the 1925 Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement in detail with a view to its further amendment' or re-negotiation in the light of the results of the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade;
2.	To continue the Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement of 1925 in force, ad interim, subject to the following:
(i)	to the extent that it may be necessary in order to avoid conflict between the provisions of the Agreement and the provisions of the GATT, the obligations of the Agreement, after consultation, may be waived.
(ii)	Canada will consult with the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean before concluding any agreement in the Kennedy Round which would have the effect of reducing margins of preference bound under the Agreement and to take such reductions into account in any renegotiation of the Agreement.
Ciii) The direct shipment requirements of Article VII are waived.
(iv) Part II of the Agreement relating to steamship services is recognized as being no longer in effect.
3.	To consult upon request with respect to measures to encourage economic development which might substantially affect the trading interests of the other parties, with a view to avoiding possible damage to those trading interests and to achieving the best use of resources, taking into account the scope for regional co-operation.
4.	To consult and co-operate on tourism and in establishing or improving transportation, communications and other facilities designed to promote mutually beneficial trade and other exchanges.
5.	To work together in international commodity discussions and arrangements, and particularly to seek to secure and maintain an appropriate and effective price range under a new International Sugar Agreement
July 11, 1966
[Stage Direction]
which will be remunerative to producers and equitable to consumers.
6.	To endeavour to revive the banana trade and to bring about increased sales of bananas to Canada from the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean.
7.	To seek to secure acceptable conditions of access for wheat in world markets in order to bring about increased trade at prices which will be remunerative to efficient producers and fair to consumers, taking into account world food needs.
8.	The Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean undertake in the development of local flour mills to provide fair and equal opportunities for the Canadian industry to participate in their development and for Canada to have a fair and equal opportunity to supply the wheat requirements of such new mills.
9.	The Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean undertake to ensure that Canadian exporters of salted cod are given a fair and equal opportunity to supply the market requirements at prices which will be remunerative to efficient producers and fair to consumers.
10.	To accord fair and equitable treatment to individuals and enterprises of the other parties.
11.	Canada undertakes to require that the origin and Canadian content of any rum marketed in Canada be clearly marked and to use its good offices with the provincial authorities to facilitate the marketing of rum from the Commonwealth Caribbean countries.
12.	In pursuance of the foregoing to establish a Commonwealth Caribbean-Canada Trade and Economic Committee to consult on trade, financial and related matters, which shall meet from time to time at ministerial or senior official level as may be appropriate.
In respect of those territories for which the United Kingdom Government has a responsibility in these matters, this Protocol is being signed with the authority of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Done at Ottawa on the eighth day of July 1966 in a single copy in the English and French languages, each version to be equally authentic.
Fait a Ottawa le huitieme jour de juillet 1966 en une seule expedition en langues anglaise et frangaise, l'une et l'autre version faisant egalement foi.
Signed	on	behalf	of	the	Government	of
Canada
Signe au nom du Gouvernement du Canada
Signed	on	behalf	of	the	Government	of
Jamaica
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de la Ja-maique
Signed	on	behalf	of	the	Government	of
Trinidad and Tobago
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de la Trinite et Tobago
Signed	on	behalf	of	the	Government	of
Guyana
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de la Guyane
Signed on behalf of the Government of Antigua
Signe au nom du Gouvernement d'Antigua
Signed on behalf of the Government of the Bahamas
Signe au nom du Gouvernement des Bahamas 23033-4771
[Stage Direction]
July 11, 1966
Signed on behalf of the Government of Barbados
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de la Bar-bade
Signed on behalf of the Government of British Honduras
Signe au nom du Gouvernement du Honduras britannique
Signed	on	behalf	of	the	Government	of
Dominica
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de la Dominique
Signed	on	behalf	of	the	Government	of
Grenada
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de Grenade
Signed	on	behalf	of	the	Government	of
Montserrat
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de Montserrat
Signed on behalf of the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de Saint-Christophe-Nevis-Anguilla
Signed on behalf of the Government of St. Lucia
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de Sainte-Lucie
Signed on behalf of the Government of St. Vincent
Signe au nom du Gouvernement de Saint-Vincent


[Stage Direction]
The Canadian Government proposal regarding raw sugar imports from the Commonwealth Caribbean countries and territories is to provide on a unilateral basis duty free entry for a quantity of raw sugar equal to the average of such imports for the last five years.
This would mean the abolition for such countries and territories only of the present British Preferential Tariff rate of approximately 290 a cwt. Any allocation of this tariff quota would be a matter for the Commonwealth Caribbean Governments.
This tariff quota would, of course, be a new tariff preference and could not therefore be implemented before a waiver was obtained from the no-new preference provisions of the GATT. Releases would also be required from the Australian, South African and United Kingdom Governments with whom Canada has trade agreements involving obligations concerning the Canadian Tariff on raw sugar. The Canadian Government will be prepared to use its best endeavours with the Canadian sugar refiners to ensure that the amount of the tariff free quota is in fact taken up each year and that the full benefit of the additional margin of preference is received by the West Indian producers.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 12, 1966