1956-06-22

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Coming as I do from the silver city of Canada, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has decided upon any way of commemorating the centennial of British Columbia. There have been several requests to have the department strike a silver dollar before the celebration in 1958. Has the minister come to any decision on that matter?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question may I say the government has decided to issue a coin to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the gold rush and the creation of British Columbia as a crown colony in 1858.
In order to do so we have decided to hold a competition of Canadian artists and sculptors for a design for a commemorative silver dollar. A committee under the chairmanship of Mr. A. P. Williams, master of the Royal Canadian Mint, will judge the entries. A prize of $1,000 will be given to the artist who submits the design that is accepted and four additional prizes of $250 each may be given for those receiving honourable mention. The competition will close on December 31, 1956.


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question supplementary to the one he answered just a moment ago. Why strike a silver dollar in order to commemorate a gold rush?


Walter Edward Harris: As I recall, it was requested by the interested parties.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house if he is
prepared to announce that there will be set up a standing committee on defence in accordance with the proposal made to the government yesterday?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot assure the house that there will be a committee set up on the model of the committee that functions in the United States. Our constitution is quite different and, as all hon. members know, under the express terms of the constitution all proposals for expenditure have to be recommended to the house by His Excellency the Governor General, whereas, I understand, under the United States system the estimates are really made up by the estimates committees of the two houses of congress.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Speaker, will the
Prime Minister agree to follow the practice at Westminster and set up a committee with power to call witnesses and to call for the production of papers under a procedure similar to that which brings before a committee of the House of Commons at Westminster senior staff officers and other senior officers in the British service?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not
sure that the British system goes that far. My own impression is that they can call the civilian personnel and the personnel of the quartermaster general, who operates under a separate statute. While I am in London I shall endeavour to ascertain just what is the practice and how it works out there.


George Alexander Drew: One further supplementary question. In view of the statements which have been made by senior staff officers who until recently were relied upon by the government for their statements, would the Prime Minister before he leaves set up some appropriate committee which could call for evidence and the production of papers so that members of this house may have reliable information in regard to the facts relating to defence which is now under discussion?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I cannot undertake to provide for the setting up of that committee before I leave this evening for the conference which is to open on June 27. I am leaving this evening so that I can take some part in the centenary celebration of the establishment of the Victoria Cross before the conference opens.
5282	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. Would the minister say what has happened to the consideration he told me he was giving to the question I put to him last Friday concerning the reference of the estimates of the Department of National Defence to the committee on estimates?


Walter Edward Harris: thought the consideration had been ended when it was decided to call the estimates in committee of supply on Wednesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, may I ask if the house leader would now consider referring these estimates to the committee on estimates after the general discussion has taken place but before we reach the point of discussing the details?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am always ready to consider any suggestion, and this one having been made I shall consider it during the day.



CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS AND WHEAT BOARD BY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or his parliamentary assistant, but in the absence of both perhaps the acting minister could answer. Is it the intention to send the report of the board of grain commissioners and the report of the Canadian wheat board to the committee on agriculture and colonization? Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce could answer.


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the reports of the board of grain commissioners and of the Canadian wheat board were referred to the committee several weeks ago.


Solon Earl Low: I was more concerned about when it is intended to call the committee. Time is going on and it seems that no effort has been made to call the committee to study these two reports.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course I cannot answer that question because the chairman of the committee decides when it will meet. However, I would point out that the witnesses who are usually brought before the committee, that is the presidents of the several grain co-operatives and the president of the farmers' union, have been in attendance in


Geneva for some weeks this spring. We are having the busiest period that we have encountered for some years as far as the movement of wheat is concerned. Some of the usual witnesses have expressed the view that they would be most reluctant to take the time to come before the committee this year. However, it is for the committee to decide whether it is necessary to have a meeting of the committee this year.



SALE OF STORED GRAINS BY RETIRED FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is any special consideration being given by this government with respect to grain held by farmers that have retired and are not able to carry on further with farm operations, in other words, retired because of advanced years, without sufficient funds to live on and depending on moneys received from their large quantities of stored grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I inquire whether my hon. friend has reference to Ontario farmers or farmers in western Canada?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Western farmers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a matter which has been given a good deal of consideration. I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend the answer at the moment but I shall have a prepared statement from the wheat boards as to the practice, which I shall be glad to give him next week.



INQUIRY AS TO MAINTENANCE OF FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his parliamentary assistant I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which he may prefer to take as notice. In view of the uncertainty left in the minds of both producers and consumers of butter by the answers given the other day by the parliamentary assistant with regard to the sale of 25 million pounds of butter at 2 cents per pound less than the cost to the government, what security has the butter producer that the floor price of 58 cents per pound will be maintained throughout June, July and August, the months during which I understand the delivery of the 25 million pounds is to be made? If the floor price is 58 cents and the government only buys about one-third of what the dairy producer produces, then what assurance has the producer

that the 56 cents, which is the price at which the government is selling butter into the trade -a greater amount at 56 cents than they are buying at 58 cents-with no particular quality distinction, and also what assurance has the consumer whether the consumer price is to be based on the 58 cents the government is paying for the butter or the 56 cents at which it is selling a larger amount?
I might also ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to have the minister or his assistant tell us whether it is a fact that five million pounds of this butter has been sold in western Canada at a further reduction to the trade of 2 cents additional, with no assurance to the consumer or the producer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since my hon. friend has directed the question to me, I shall answer it.


William Earl Rowe: I said that it could be taken as notice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall draw it to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. I expect he will be back in his seat next week.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Labour, I am not sure who should deal with this question. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour or any minister from the province of Quebec might have the answer. In view of the fact that Saint-Jean Baptiste day falls on Sunday, is it clear that federal civil servants in the province of Quebec will get Monday as a holiday in the same way as federal civil servants in other provinces get the first Monday in August as a holiday?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I am the Acting Secretary of State and I shall take that question as notice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, since the next time we reach orders of the day will be on Monday, June 25, I should hope that the Acting Secretary of State might be able to give an answer later today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall try to at 2.30. [Later:!
On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may have leave before you leave the chair to answer the question asked earlier today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about Saint-Jean Baptiste day.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the chairman of the civil service commission that it is one of the regulations of the civil service that one day in the year shall be recognized as a holiday for the civil service in any municipality where that day is proclaimed as a civic holiday, that it is the custom in most places in the province of Quebec to proclaim Saint-Jean Baptiste day as a civic holiday, and that that has been done in the case of Montreal and probably in the case of many municipalities for Monday next. Of course in those places where it has been done municipally the civil service will follow the usual practice.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Could he inform the house when we might expect the documents on the Fontana case, as passed on April 3, I believe? It is a matter of some importance to this individual.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I had the
impression that the documents had been tabled. I shall check on it.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether at his forthcoming meeting with the appropriate officials of the government of British Columbia he will be prepared to discuss with them the future development of Garibaldi park?


Jean Lesage: I shall take the matter under consideration, sir.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce now in a position to withdraw from his inside pocket an answer to my question of yesterday?
5284	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would be much more courteous if my hon. friend would leave out his comment about my inside pocket. However, I can answer the question. Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation has received from the Department of Finance the sum of $20,000 for working capital and the sum of $6,775,000 for advances to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The sum of $6,775,000 was advanced to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited on Monday, June 18, and the crown company received in exchange a 5 per cent mortgage bond in the same amount.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I preface the question I am about to ask by extending to the Prime Minister every good wish on the occasion of his trip to the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London. That comes from everyone in the house. My question is this. First, would the Prime Minister be prepared to outline in general some of the views that he intends to express on the agenda to which reference is made in today's papers? Second, what stand does he intend to take with reference to the question of extending the British preference, which apparently is one of the basic considerations to come before the conference, as a means whereby trade within the commonwealth and also among the free nations will be expanded and extended in order to meet the U.S.S.R. world trade offensive?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I wish to thank the hon. member and all hon. members of the house for their good wishes, and I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I will be able to do our share in producing fruitful results from the conference in London. I do not think it would be proper for me to state what views we will support. They will be subject to the discussions that will take place in respect to each matter that comes before the conference.
With respect to the extension of the British preference, if that is discussed in the plenary meeting my colleague and I will be very interested to hear the views expressed by other members of the commonwealth in that regard. The hon. gentleman may be assured that we are still firmly convinced that dollars earned in the Canadian market through the sale in the Canadian market of exports from commonwealth countries do increase the volume of Canadian commodities that it is


possible for us to sell in those markets, and that we are very anxious, as I am sure all hon. members are, to have as much world trade promoted through the efforts of the commonwealth as it is possible to achieve.
The situation is a complex one and one that will, if discussed there, have to be considered in all its aspects. I can assure the house that we will do everything possible that would tend to increase the volume of exchanges between commonwealth countries.


John George Diefenbaker: Various members of the British press have reported that the Canadian government, and in particular the Prime Minister, would be opposed to any extension of the British preference. Would the Prime Minister say whether or not that is correct?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is not correct as a general statement. The matter will have to be considered in all its aspects and of course in the light of its possible repercussions upon the general tariff and trade arrangements which are still in force and which have proved to be of quite substantial benefit to Canadian trade.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the chairman of the agriculture committee. Has the hon. gentleman received any requests from any of the farm organizations to come before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization?


Mr. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have received two requests.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

['Mr. Chairman, I regret that it is necessary for me to say a few words at this point. I appreciate the consideration that has been given by the opposition groups to the request for interim supply and their assurance that it would be granted. Some of the remarks that have been made have\n\nbeen, shall I say, of a grievance nature, but that is a matter of opinion. I can assure hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the hon. member for Dauphin, who have spoken on one particular matter, that it will receive serious consideration and an answer will be given at the appropriate time.\nI should also like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I am sure the latter would expect the Minister of Justice to deal at some length with the question he raised on his estimates when he is back in the house, and I will bring that to his attention. The earlier part of the debate, however, was of a nature that I do not think I need say very much about, except that I am gratified at the attention paid to my modest effort on the radio last Friday night. I have nothing to add to that except to make a brief reference to the suggestions made by both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Prince Albert, and in particular the conclusion of the hon. member for Prince Albert when he suggested some form of collaboration. He used the word himself, and I did not recall that the Leader of the Opposition had used it. Just by way of answer to whatever was said with respect to me during that time, I should like to put on the record again what I said on June 8, as found at page 4851 of Hansard:\nMay I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, to deny at this point-\nMay I interject that was the earliest time at which I could rise.\n-that I at any time influenced the Speaker in any manner whatsoever in the course of the debate.']
Walter Edward Harris: That a sum not exceeding $264,409,639.92 being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and a sum not exceeding $12,168,792.75, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957.
He said: Mr. Chairman, as the resolution indicates, the proposed bill to be founded on the resolution will provide for one-twelfth

of all the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1956-57 and one-twelfth of all the items in the supplementary estimates for the same fiscal year. This bill is to provide for all necessary ordinary requirements to the end of July. No additional proportions are being provided for at this time. In no instance is the total amount of any item being requested.
The passing of this bill-if it is passed- will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize and discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for consideration from time to time through the balance of the session, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this motion to
provide interim supply for the month of July follows very shortly after a similar motion to cover interim supply for the month of June. I think I should explain the position that we take with regard to interim supply. It is difficult to realize that it was only at the beginning of last week that we were dealing with this subject for the whole of the present month. Interim supply would have a different meaning if we were not sitting continuously to deal with estimates.
I want to make one thing clear. When two weeks ago today I asked the Prime Minister whether it was the intention of the government to adjourn for the summer months or to proceed with a continuous session, I was directing that question to the possibility that the government was asking for only a month's interim supply and might then adjourn, as had been indicated generally in the press, without having provided for the period during which the house would not be sitting. I also had in mind that, if this was done, the only course the government could follow in paying the civil servants, the members of the armed forces and, in fact, all the many people dependent upon payments month by month from the government, would be to resort to governor general's warrants.
From the nature of my questions both on Friday two weeks ago and a week ago Monday I think it must be clear that if there had not been a continuous examination of the estimates and if there had been any attempt to adjourn with only a month's supply voted, we would not have consented to the voting of supply.
However, I want to remind the members of the house that interim supply does not in any way prejudice the consideration of the estimates, as has already been undertaken by the Minister of Finance. We are simply
Interim Supply
asked to provide for one-twelfth of the total amount that is estimated as the requirement of the government. The granting of this amount permits payment of the necessary monthly payments of every kind, without prejudice to the details of any item in the estimates. We are continuing to discuss those estimates and, therefore, we follow the practice that has been followed on other occasions, without exception, in the past. There has, in fact, been no case in Canadian history where there was a protracted debate in regard to the ordinary voting of one month's supply. There was a case in 1921 when there was objection to the voting of two month's supply. In fact, on that occasion there was vigorous opposition to that procedure.
But it has been the invariable practice to permit the payments that are required to carry out the ordinary business of the people of Canada. It is not the business of the government. It is not the prerogative of the government. It is the rights of the people of Canada who are dealing with the Canadian government, whatever that government may be, to have the payments they expect on time. Under those circumstances, and in view of the fact that we are continuing to deal with the estimates, it is not our purpose to seek to prevent the ordinary payments being made. May I leave no doubt that had we thought it was possible to force an election by delay on the earlier occasion, we would certainly have followed that course. The government, however, had made it quite clear it had no intention at that time of acceding to our proposal. We took the position, and take the position again, that while we have no confidence in the attitude of this government toward parliament, while we believe this government has no moral right to govern in view of its conduct, nevertheless we do not believe the civil servants, members of the armed forces and people doing business with the government should become the victims of any procedure that might be adopted as the result of the actions of the government itself. That is what the result would be.
While it is not our intention to delay the voting of interim supply, nevertheless it is my intention to avail myself of the appropriate opportunity to discuss certain subjects which are related to the broad details of the motion before us. As will be realized by every hon. member in this house, any item included in the estimates can be discussed. I do intend to discuss one or two subjects which could very properly be embraced in the remarks that are made in relation to a motion of this nature. One thing about which I want to speak is the speech made by the Minister of Finance a week ago tonight over the trans-Canada network of the C.B.C. It

House of Commons
is a mass of inaccuracies, but those inaccuracies can be dealt with on other occasions.
I am going to deal with one statement that was made by the Minister of Finance and I do so because if there is one minister in this house who should not have made that statement it is the Minister of Finance. I am going to quote from the printed copy of the speech which was issued by the National Liberal Federation of Canada. These are the words contained in that speech which I assume were the words used over the radio:
I am not going to say very much about the action taken by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. George Drew, in attacking the Deputy Speaker and in moving in parliament that the house no longer had confidence in its Speaker. No one who understands our British parliamentary system would question the right of the opposition or the duty of the opposition, to oppose the government and to introduce motions to embarrass the government and to express lack of confidence in the government. That is the right of an opposition. Indeed, the opposition has a duty to try to defeat the government. But it is one thing to attack the government and a very different thing to attack the presiding officers who represent the authority of parliament itself.
The members of the opposition who supported Mr. Drew in attacking the Speaker admitted that before the pipe line debate began, he had been a good Speaker; some of them said the best Speaker the Canadian parliament had ever had. Yet, they felt they were justified in attacking a respected officer of parliament and seeking to destroy his reputation.
I cannot believe the people of Canada will easily forget or easily forgive conduct of that kind, conduct which, if persisted in, would destroy the institution of parliament itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the applause which has come from hon. members opposite including the man who has been directing the affairs of the government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, indicates very clearly why this government has no moral right to govern. The very fact they applaud a statement of this kind indicates how little consciousness there is of what this government has done to destroy the institution of parliament in Canada. The man who accepted the primary responsibility of a course of that kind was the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has applauded that statement. It was he who, in spite of the statement of the minister that the opposition had the right to oppose the government, denied that normal right by moving closure before there had been a word said in this house by any member of the opposition; and it was the Minister of Finance who was mainly responsible for the circumstances which led to the motions relating to the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker which were presented to this house.
TMr. Drew.]
It is the Prime Minister who, as head of the government, must accept the full moral responsibility for the abomination which occurred here during the course of the debate which closed just two weeks ago.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has made a statement that for unctuous pretence has not been exceeded at any time in the parliament of Canada. Here is the man who is mainly responsible for making the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker victims of the government's conduct. Here is the man who was sending messages to the Speaker as reported by members of the press who saw those messages being passed. I would point out it was not an attack made on the Speaker by members of the opposition which brought this subject before parliament; it was the way in which the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and those responsible for the conduct of business in this house were forced into a position of subservience to the will of the government in pushing through a measure which the government had determined to have passed by this house no matter what took place and no matter what rule was broken.
No wonder the Minister of Trade and Commerce in a television interview said, "Yes, we violated the rules-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I said no such thing; my hon. friend is now stating a falsehood.


George Alexander Drew: I am not stating a falsehood. I heard the words over the television; but what the Minister of Trade and Commerce should also know is that because there was an interruption in power the C.B.C. issued a text of what was said and the text contains those words.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the text contains those words. If you will send me the text I will believe what you say.


William Earl Rowe: Surely you have seen it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows perfectly well he used those words.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not use those words.


George Alexander Drew: And the minister knows perfectly well that the government did violate the rules. He also knows perfectly well the government was a party to the violation of the rules. He knows very well the position we have taken with regard to the Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This speech is a violation of the rules.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I cannot in this case ignore the interruption by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in which he said that this speech is a violation of the rules. In the mind of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration any statement by the opposition is a violation of the rights of the government. I noticed one statement in the speech of the Minister of Finance that there were two members of the opposition who had spoken 30 times. That total was arrived at by adding up the number of times comments had been made by certain members of the opposition. If the Minister of Finance will examine Hansard and look at the number of times the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration appears he will doubtless find by that test that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration spoke more than 100 times during the debate because he was constantly interrupting. I will say this, however; he made those speeches while sitting in his seat and not by taking part in the debate either on the rules or on the subject matter before the house.


William Earl Rowe: One hundred speeches and
nothing said.


Mr. Hellyer:: That is a pretty faded rose you are wearing.


George Alexander Drew: I would be very happy to have the hon. member who just interrupted from a reclining position rise and make the statement in the way that statements are supposed to be made before this house. I would be very happy to give him the opportunity to do so. Does the hon. member care to do so or does he wish to remain in a reclining position?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will accept the courtesy and rise and say it is a very faded rose the Leader of the Opposition is wearing this morning.


William Earl Rowe: We still cannot hear you.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that interruption was put on the record because it indicates the standard of the interruptions which have been made by members supporting this government during the course of the discussion of this whole subject. If the rose I happen to be wearing this morning is faded I would suggest that the hon. member make an appropriate appeal to the correct official of the government because it was cut in my own garden this morning and if it has wilted it is probably only under the impact of remarks such as the hon. member has just made.


William Earl Rowe: He has not even bloomed yet.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the remark that has just been made is
House of Commons
indicative of the type of interruption that has been occurring in this house not only now but during the course of the debate to which I refer.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance, who apparently disagrees with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because he says the opposition has the right to speak-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never said the contrary either.


George Alexander Drew: I just want to recall exactly what did take place because I wish to leave no uncertainty as to the circumstances under which the motion was first presented which directed the attention of the house to the conduct of the Deputy Speaker and later the motion dealing with the conduct of the Speaker. May I recall those events. On Thursday night, May 31, the Speaker permitted the presentation of a motion arising on a question of privilege which was in accordance with the rules. The Speaker himself took the initiative in guiding the framing of that motion. The Speaker himself stated that the question was an important question of privilege and he placed the matter before the house for discussion. At that time I rose to speak in the debate on that motion which was properly before the house.
I had spoken for a short time when the house adjourned at ten o'clock. On Friday morning, June 1, the Speaker had not risen when I rose to continue the debate. I was on my feet and the house was seized with the motion, the motion which had been accepted by the Speaker and in fact framed by the Speaker himself because of the advice he had given as to the form it should take. It was under debate and the right to debate had been fully accepted in the house without challenge.
Nevertheless the Speaker then rose and refused to permit me to continue the debate. He refused further to hear me either on the point of order or on the question of privilege. The rules make it clear that he had no right to deny that opportunity to me. He certainly had no right to deny that opportunity when I had already taken the floor and when I was continuing a debate which under his guidance had been before the house the previous evening. He gave no authority of any kind for his position. He denied the motion and to other members the right to discuss the rules. He placed on the records of this house a dangerous precedent which can be quoted in future as a precedent for the taking of an improper course which could destroy the regular procedure in any debate.



[Stage Direction]
House of Commons
Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is entirely and completely out of order in attempting to review the actions of Mr. Speaker before you and this committee. I cannot conceive of anything more out of order than to do what he is trying to do. If he is to be permitted to make these statements which are not well-founded, as to what happened and which constitute improper criticism of Mr. Speaker before this committee, then of course he should be answered, but anyone answering him would be also out of order. I submit that he should not be permitted to make these improper statements, which he is making and which are not well-founded either on fact or on the rules, before a committee of this house. He should not be permitted to criticize the conduct of Mr. Speaker and I submit that he is absolutely out of order and should be asked to desist.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, every subject which can be dealt with by this parliament can now be properly dealt with on the motion for interim supply. The motion covers one-twelfth of the estimates which embrace every item, including the administration of the Speaker's office. Therefore it is not only appropriate but it is very proper that the discussion should take place at this time in regard to the very inaccurate interpretation given by the Minister of Finance as to what occurred in this house. The remarks which I shall subsequently make will relate themselves very clearly to the position of Speaker and to the estimates of this house.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern has raised a point of order and perhaps I should deal with it following the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have looked at the motion which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition several weeks ago with regard to Mr. Speaker, and I find also that in the estimates there are items dealing with the allowances to Mr. Speaker, to myself and to other officials. Under those circumstances I am unable to find that a discussion of those offices at this time is out of order. However, I do say that it must be a discussion which would be relevant under the items of legislation at a later time; that is the only type of discussion which could take place on a motion for interim supply at this time.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to argue your ruling but I do point out to you that this very point that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition was raised as a reason for censuring Mr. Speaker and was actually decided on by this house, the only place where it could be decided upon.
IMr. Drew.]
When the house has actually decided upon a question, the question being decided upon being one of the reasons why Mr. Speaker should be censured, when the house decided the question that he should not be censured, I suggest that to permit this to be rehashed before this committee and to ask it to pass judgment on something which has already been decided is out of order entirely.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I should read the exact terms of the motion, which are as follows:
In view of the unprecedented action of Mr. Speaker in (a) improperly reversing his own decision without notice and without giving any opportunity for discussion; (b) repeatedly refusing to allow members to address the house on occasions when the rules provide that they have the right to be heard; (c) subordinating the rights of the house to the will of the government, this house resolves that it no longer has any confidence in its presiding officer.
I quite agree with the hon. member for Rosthern that matters covered by that motion, which was negatived, cannot be discussed at this time, but I do not see how a discussion of the competence of the Speaker, of myself and others, since these items appear in the estimates and as long as we do not deal with questions which have been decided upon by the house, could be ruled out of order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to seek a review of a motion which in one case has been ruled to be not debatable, and of a motion which in another case has been voted down. I am dealing with a subject which will come before the house under the estimates and, as Your Honour has indicated, therefore something which it is appropriate to discuss at this time. In doing so I am taking particular issue with certain statements made by the Minister of Finance which have a bearing on this subject. It is my intention simply to state the facts of what occurred because of the relationship with appropriations which will subsequently be dealt with as part of the general estimates of which interim supply will constitute one-twelfth.
Therefore, to continue what I was saying at the time the point of order was raised, I would point out that in making the decision he did on that occasion, without giving any authority whatever for his position, the Speaker has created difficulties in the future for any Speaker who may occupy the chair, because of the precedent which has been established in that way by the actions to which reference has been made. I submit that the Speaker disregarded the following rules or authorities.
Standing order 50 provides that, if it is out of order, the Speaker must so rule before he puts it forward for discussion, and also

that he must give his authority when he rules that a motion is out of order.
Standing order 7 provides that business under consideration at adjournment the night before will be taken up on the next sitting day, "at the same stage where its progress was interrupted."
Standing order 34 (1) provides that a member who has the floor, as I had on the Thursday evening and again on Friday morning two weeks ago, may be interrupted on a point of order, but that after that point has been stated the member may speak to it. I was denied the opportunity to speak to it, and so was every other member of the house.
Standing order No. 17 provides that a point of privilege may be raised at any time. In this case the Speaker refused to hear me on a point of privilege on Friday morning, after he had followed the course he did and while the subject was still under consideration.
Then I would refer to citation 216 of Beauchesne's third edition, which states that the member who moved adjournment of a debate is by courtesy entitled to speak first if he rises in his place when the order for it is called. I had risen before anything had been said and I was therefore entitled to speak under the terms of that citation. Most certainly, if I was not to be allowed to speak, then the explanation should have been given for it.
On Friday morning, June 1, Mr. Speaker did something else without precedent in the annals of this house or of Westminster. He put forward what he described as a proposition to the house, namely that since he had himself made a serious error the previous evening, the house should revert to the position in which it was at the time when he said he had made the error, namely about 5.15 p.m. on Thursday evening. This was something which had no relationship to any course ever followed before. The rules of debate-rules of long antiquity which we have inherited from Westminster-clearly provide that nothing can be submitted to the house for its decision except by way of a motion. That is without qualification.
Recognizing the impropriety of his course of action, Mr. Speaker carefully tried to avoid calling it a motion, because of course the Speaker cannot under the rules initiate a motion before the house. He described his strange procedure as a proposition or course of action which he was submitting to the house for its determination. That in itself was indicative of some unusual circumstances which this house cannot now ignore, any more than it had a right to ignore them then. He did, in fact, as the record will show, fall
House of Commons
into the error on one occasion of calling it a motion when he put the question-an error which he later attempted to correct. However, the brief statement of the position is that nothing can be submitted to the house for its decision by vote unless it is in the form of a motion. Whatever it may be called, therefore, Mr. Speaker actually submitted a motion to the house. In this conduct he was guilty of a breach of the following standing orders or citations:
Standing order 41, which is the general rule providing for 48 hours' notice of a motion before it can be presented to the house for discussion and decision.
Standing order 42, which requires that, generally speaking, if notice is to be waived, unanimous consent for such a course must be obtained.
Standing order 43, which provides that all motions shall be in writing and be seconded before being debated or put from the Chair. This motion was not written or seconded.
Standing order 32 (1) (m), which provides that a motion of this sort, which clearly covers the management of the business of the house, the arrangements of the proceedings of the house, etc., is debatable. The Speaker refused to allow debate.
Citation 135, Beauchesne's third edition, which emphasizes the necessity for strict adherence to the order paper to prevent surprise. A privilege motion was on the order paper and was suddenly removed; the Speaker's proposition was not on the order paper but was suddenly introduced.
Citation 136, Beauchesne's third edition, which provides that all motions referring to the business of the house should be introduced by the leader of the house.
There were specific instances, which have not in any way been wiped from the record by any motion which was dealt with by this house. They have a very direct bearing upon the occupant of the office and the estimates that are provided by that office when the time comes to consider them.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order again, Mr. Chairman, I think that every member of this house must agree that the action of the Speaker can only be challenged on a specific motion after two days' notice. The Leader of the Opposition is challenging the actions of Mr. Speaker, before a committee of this house, and without any notice. I am not going to refer to the ruling-he can do it-although it has already been decided by the house, but I cite the other ruling. He now is challenging the actions of Mr. Speaker in the house, when the rules lay down both at Westminster and here that

House of Commons
the actions of Mr. Speaker can only be challenged by a specific motion of which notice has been given.
I submit that the Leader of the Opposition has no right to violate the rules on the alleged ground that this vote will affect the salary of Mr. Speaker. In a deliberative assembly such as this and Westminster, when an attempt has been made to call the Speaker into question at a time when a question is involved of voting part of his money, it has been laid down over and over again that he cannot be challenged, nor attacks and derogatory statements made about him, unless a motion is made to that effect, of which 48 hours' notice is given. I submit citation 110 of Beauchesne's second edition:
If a member wishes to challenge the action or conduct of the Speaker on any matter other than an appeal from his decision, he must proceed by giving two days' notice of a motion on the subject and by bringing the matter up as a Separate question, except, of course, if it be a question of privilege when it may be taken up as such.
This is one of the well established rules for protecting the position of the Speaker. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that he is out of order in talking before this committee as he is today.


William Earl Rowe: The chairman says you are out of order.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Ros-thern raises a question of undoubted difficulty. We have on the one hand a motion which has been negatived by the house. I draw the attention of hon. members to the latter part of standing order 35 which reads:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks is prevented by the words of the standing order from reflecting on a motion which has been negatived several weeks ago. At the same time, I do not think I can prevent the Leader of the Opposition from discussing the competence of the Speaker or of myself or of any other official who is mentioned in the items which hon. members will find under legislation. I admit quite frankly that it is exceedingly difficult to draw the line but, as long as the Leader of the Opposition does not reflect on the vote which has previously taken place on his own motion, then I believe he is in order. I would take it that some of the references in the latter part of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the specific instance which was the subject of his previous motion might be deemed so to reflect, but as long as the Leader of

the Opposition confines himself to the competence of officials who are mentioned in these estimates I believe he is in order. Otherwise, if he reflects on a vote, he is, of course, not in order. My difficulty, as hon. members will appreciate, is to draw a very difficult line.


Mr. Mclvor:: On the point of order, I think the Leader of the Opposition is nearly through.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would point out that I have already made it clear that the remarks I am making are directed to the offices which are provided for in the estimates themselves. I submit that it is entirely proper and, in fact, the duty of hon. members to discuss subjects of this kind when there can be any possibility that there has been a misinterpretation of what took place in this house and at a time when the subject is bound to come up for further consideration. What I am saying is not and cannot be directed to a motion which has already been dealt with by a vote in one case or to a motion which, in another case, was held not to be immediately debatable. My remarks relate to an office for which provision is made in the estimates, and it is in that light that I am placing these facts before the committee.
I now proceed to deal with the questions arising in connection with the chairman and deputy chairman because the statement to which I refer, which was made by the Minister of Finance, related to the officers of the house whose conduct had been under consideration. I would point out that both the chairman and the deputy chairman repeatedly refused to hear members on points of order or questions of privilege. That is a matter of record in Hansard. It is not going to be erased from Hansard by any suggestion that some motion has been dealt with or another motion not discussed. In fact, so very clear did this become that on one occasion the deputy chairman made it obvious that he was denying the right simply in order to get a vote taken on a motion which was before the committee and before any question as to its impropriety could be raised.
On that occasion, as I think will be recalled by all hon. members who were here at the time, he admitted that the member for Kamloops was correct in stating that the deputy chairman deliberately ignored members who were trying to get the floor and that he ignored them because he intended to put the question without hearing any argument. I refer to Hansard, page 4560, column 2, to indicate the reference I have made. In this course both the chairman and the deputy chairman were in flagrant violation of the

following standing orders or citations: Standing order 17, which provides that whenever any matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately; standing order 34 (1), which provides in effect that a member may raise a point of order at any time; citation 110, Beauchesne, third edition, which points out that points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the standing orders and the customary modes of proceeding in a debate or in the conduct of legislative business, and may be raised at any time by any member. I would repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the citation is emphatic that these questions may be raised at any time by any member. Nevertheless, members were denied on this occasion.
The deputy chairman permitted consideration of clauses of the bill in committee out of their proper order. He did this by giving a strange interpretation, I might say a fantastic interpretation, to the word "consideration" whereby he found himself able to rule that a clause had been considered by the committee although the minister had done nothing more than give a summary of its content and move its postponement. The whole procedure occupied about 15 seconds. As a result of this misinterpretation there was a breach later of the following standing orders: Standing order 78 (1), which provides that every clause must be considered by the committee in its proper order; standing order 33, the closure rule, which provides that closure will apply only to those matters which have already been considered and that the further consideration of them will not be further postponed. The chairman was able to say, by the unusual procedure he followed, that clauses had been considered which had not actually even been before the committee.
I am not going to make the other references I could make, Mr. Chairman, to the application of other rules, citations and standing orders which are affected by what was done on this occasion. I have simply stated what took place as a question of fact. Hansard will support the statements I have made. I have indicated the applicable standing orders and citations to show where, in our opinion, there was a departure from the procedure which should have been followed. We believe that dangerous precedents have been established as the result of that. We believe that the effectiveness of the positions of the Speaker, the chairman and the deputy chairman have been seriously affected by what has taken place. Therefore at the appropriate time it will be proper to consider what did occur.
What should be remembered, however, at this time, because we now have the whole 67509-335
House of Commons
activity of the government before us on a motion to provide interim supply, is that it was the government which succeeded in having these unfortunate incidents carried to their very definite conclusion. The minister has denied certain statements that appeared in the press about his intervention. The minister has not denied that there was a discussion of what took place in this house with the Speaker. The minister cannot deny that members of the government did discuss with the Speaker what would take place in the house. The minister cannot deny that what happened had the result of changing the whole course of the debate in the house. The minister cannot deny that these were not merely questions of mistakes or otherwise. The minister cannot deny that the effect of what took place was to make it possible for the government to meet a deadline which it had set.
I am raising these points now so that there may be no uncertainty that in dealing with the estimates of the government generally and in dealing with the estimates involving the offices of Speaker, chairman and deputy chairman of committees, we have not for one moment withdrawn in any way from the position we took. We made it perfectly clear when we presented first a motion relating to the chairman and then a motion relating to the Speaker that it was the action of the government which we believed had made these men victims of their course of conduct. We believe that as the result of what happened the government should in honour dissolve at the earliest possible date and make it possible for the house to meet again with a new parliament, whatever the government may be, that will be in harmony and in keeping with the wishes of the people themselves.
If this government were re-elected it would at least come forward then with a mandate to take a new course and to take a fresh stand. If the people of the country elected a new government in such a test, and most certainly that is a possibility which the government has every right to recognize, then this whole situation would be changed by the application of the rules in keeping with our ancient traditions.
We believe that when we spoke in this house during the debate we were speaking for the majority of the people of Canada, no matter what number of members there may be opposite us in the house at this time. We believe that we were speaking in a manner that was consistent with the rights of parliament and with the traditions of our free parliamentary system. We believe that it would be proper, honourable and just that, before he leaves for the conference in

House of Commons
London, the Prime Minister state that it is his intention to dissolve the house at an appropriate date so that there may be an early election in order to give the people of Canada a right to express their opinion not merely upon the strange procedure by which the government advanced money to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited but-what is more important-in order that the people of Canada may be in a position to express their opinion upon the manner in which this government violated the rules and brought the position of Speaker, Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees and deputy chairman of committees into disrepute by the action they were forced to follow as a result of the conduct of the government. That is what I believe would be in keeping with the great traditions of parliament which have been challenged in this way.
When the Minister of Finance talks about the attack made on the Speaker and the chairman of committees, he should remember that he was the one who introduced the motion for the ejection of the hon. member for Eglinton which precipitated one of the scenes in this house which brought to the attention of the Canadian public what had taken place. Oh, when the hon. members opposite make their contemptible insinuations that this was a planned course of action-


An hon. Member:: It was.


George Alexander Drew: We hear from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, still sitting in his seat. We hear from him that it was. Does the minister suggest that we knew that the Minister of Finance was going to introduce this motion? What utter nonsense! He was not taking us into his confidence. We did not know that he was going to make himself a party to action of this kind. What happened was the result of the action of the Minister of Finance himself; and when he makes statements such as those he made in his radio address, it would be well if he remembered that.
The question of interim supply, Mr. Chairman, raises the right to discuss many things. We wish that it were possible on this occasion, by dealing with specific items, to raise an issue that could precipitate the kind of vote that would express the opinion of this house with regard to certain detailed matters. But that is not possible. We cannot deal with individual items on this motion for interim supply. As I have said, the motion for interim supply is one which, by tradition, is accepted in this house; and it is accepted in Westminster in the same way. I recognize that there is control over supply by the house. I recognize that in the house the

majority will, of course, decide. But I also recognize that it has been customary, over the years, to grant supply for the purpose of the business of the country. I should like to read a quotation which is perhaps not without some application to this matter. It is to be found in a book entitled "Parliamentary Grants" by Durell. At page 4 he says this:
The drastic step of refusing supplies is, however, one which has never been applied. A sword of Damocles, of which the blade is eaten away with rust, it remains suspended in the armoury of the constitution-an object of historical and picturesque interest alone.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, while it may be an object of historical and picturesque interest alone, it provides the opportunity to discuss certain subjects which need to be raised. I have made these remarks at this time because I wish to state once again that what occurred in this house has not been changed by any vote that has been taken. What has occurred in this house has damaged the effectiveness of this parliament as long as the present parliament remains. What has happened in this house under the guidance of this government has damaged the rules and placed on record precedents which at some future time could be extremely dangerous indeed. This government may preen itself that its conduct will be safe for the people of Canada. We do not believe that it is correct in making that assumption. But even if that is the opinion of this government, there could be men of such strange and radical views that they would recognize the danger there could be if these men could toss out the rule books and, by a simple majority, force through this house anything they wanted done.
That was what this government did with the unfortunate co-operation of the Speaker, the chairman of committees and the deputy chairman. That is the reason that these facts need to be repeated. That is the reason that this government no longer has any moral right to govern. That is the reason the Prime Minister would be following the honourable course if he assured us that there would be an election which would cleanse this parliament and bring back a parliament in keeping with the wishes of the people of Canada in relation to this great issue which has developed. It is not a matter of the right of members of parliament as individuals; it is a matter of the rights of the people of Canada. We are only their servants; we are only their representatives. Our right to speak is the right of the people of Canada to be heard. That right has been challenged; and imbedded now in our rules-until there is another parliament-are dangerous precedents which

could be gravely abused at any time by this or any succeeding government.
Before I sit down I want to speak on one other subject which I believe is of immediate importance as a result of what has taken place. On various occasions in the past we have presented resolutions calling for the setting up of an appropriate committee or commission to consider reform of the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a proper time for the Prime Minister to consider the way in which reform of the Canadian Senate can be effectively brought about. Over many long years members of the party which supports him have expressed their belief that there should be reform. We have expressed our belief that there should be reform. There should therefore be agreement on this subject. We agree that, as long as this government remains in office, it must assume the initiative in dealing with this subject. We believe it is one with regard to which the provincial governments must be consulted. It may well be that a royal commission, which embraces representatives of this government and of the provincial governments as well as members of the two houses, should consider this whole subject. Most certainly if ever there was evidence that the other house needs reform, it is now as a result of the way in which the extremely important bill, which was so extensively discussed publicly and in this house, was dealt with in the Senate. That the measure was put through by a new form of overall closure which provided its acceptance in such a speedy and expeditious manner, in keeping with the desires of the government of this country, emphasizes the need for sweeping reforms which will give to the other house an effective part in our bicameral system. The Prime Minister has it in his power to initiate proceedings which could continue, no matter what happens to this government or to any other government. With the evidence before us of what has occurred, I submit that it would be appropriate that these steps be taken now. I raise this question because, if these steps are to be taken, the Prime Minister could be considering them before his departure from, or most certainly before his return to, this house.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall give way to other speakers who may wish to discuss other subjects under interim supply. I repeat that in supporting this motion for interim supply we are simply following precedents and that this does not in any way limit our right to question any item; that it in no way prejudices our right to challenge any department; that it in no way prejudices our right to question the conduct of any minister or official under this government. We accept, on the one hand, the conditions stated by the 67509-335*
House of Commons
minister in presenting this motion for a supply of one-twelfth of the total amount which has been asked for in the estimates and we shall permit it to pass after such discussion as may take place on any of the items that are before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before us at the present time is what might be called a routine motion. I would say that there is coming to the government a certain measure of credit in connection with the introduction of this motion, but there is also a considerable measure of discredit in what it is doing at the present time. On the credit side I would point out that the delay in which the government indulged with respect to the last interim supply motion is not being repeated on this occasion. Hon. members are aware that it was not until June 11 that the government brought in a motion for interim supply to provide for money for the month of June. In other words, civil service salaries and wages and payments to members of the armed forces for June 15 were under a certain question mark as late as June 11. On this occasion, however, we are dealing with the question of supply for the month of July. So far as individuals are concerned the first salary cheques that are involved are the cheques of July 15. This being June 22, it is obvious that no question mark arises so far as those salary and wage payments are concerned.
As hon. members will recall, when we were debating interim supply on June 11 I gave a long list of dates showing that across the years it had been the practice to request interim supply some time in the month previous to the month for which interim supply was needed. I am glad to see the government getting back on the rails so far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, in that it is now only June 22 when supply is being sought for the month of July.
However, Mr. Chairman, the very fact that this routine motion, this routine request, is being made in such a routine way, as if everything were quite normal, as if nothing; were wrong, is what in my view is to the discredit of the government. What the government is asking for is not just the money that it needs to pay bills and salaries in the month of July, what the government is asking parliament is for permission to carry on in the routine way just as if there were no question as to its moral authority to continue to govern. In our view, as I stated on behalf of this group on June 11, it is not possible for a free parliament to have done to it some of the things that were done in recent weeks and to carry on in the normal way. It still seems to us that the one honourable way to

House of Commons
deal with the situation that has developed in this parliament is for this parliament to be dissolved and an election to be held.
It is not my purpose to rehash the incidents that took place during May and the early part of June. I am sure it will not be necessary for the hon. member for Rosthern or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to raise any points of order on what I have to say because I shall talk, not about the past but about the present. It is recognized by yourself, Mr. Chairman, and by all the members of the committee that included in the items one-twelfth of which we are now being asked to vote, are items for the work of parliament. In other words, I have in mind not just the items to which the Leader of the Opposition referred but all the items under legislation which provide for parliament to continue in session. It is my view that the atmosphere in this parliament at this time-true, it is because of things that happened in the past but I am talking about the present-makes it the kind of parliament, the kind of House of Commons in particular, which should be dissolved and replaced by another one.
I feel that we owe this as a duty to the Canadian people. After all we are here not for our own sakes; we are here to be the parliament of the people of Canada. There are certain duties which devolve upon us, and I think one of the duties is to have the kind of atmosphere, the kind of relationships back and forth across this house, in which the business of the country can be properly conducted and our work properly done. I think I can say, without at the moment assessing the blame or indulging in any recriminations, that anyone who .looks objectively at the atmosphere in this House of Commons at this time recognizes that it is not the kind of House of Commons to which the Canadian people are entitled. I put it to the Prime Minister and to the government in those terms. I am not going to do as I have done on occasion and bring forth authorities, citations and rules. I put it to the government in plain, human terms. We all know that the atmosphere that now obtains in this House of Commons is not a satisfactory basis for dealing with the work of the country to which it is our duty to attend.
It does seem to me that even the fact that speeches such as the one just made by the Leader of the Opposition can be made, not to mention the points of order that have been raised on the other side, all underline the fact that the moral authority of this parliament has been taken away from it. It is my view it is the government that robbed this parliament of its moral authority.
[Mr. Knowles.l
Apart from that, the fact of the matter is that moral authority no longer obtains in this house. It is quite clear that the best thing the government can do for the good of parliament and out of loyalty to the interests of the Canadian people is to make arrangements just as soon as possible for this parliament to end and for an election to be held. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I say that the routine way in which this routine motion is being introduced, without any comment being made by the government as to what its plans are for this session or for the holding of an election, is to its discredit.
I appreciate the fact that no minister rose at the end of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. In other words, others of us were also given an opportunity to speak. But I hope that the government will not sit this debate out. I hope that someone speaking on behalf of the government will deal with the issues that have been raised, will deal particularly with the question as to the moral authority of this parliament to continue. I say again it is an issue that is greater than the government, greater than any party or greater than the interest of individuals here. It is an issue that is of concern to the Canadian people who have the right to have sitting a parliament with a moral authority such as this parliament does not now possess.
I said, Mr. Chairman, that I would not rehash the things that happened during the pipe line debate but that I would deal with the present situation. I hope I will not be accused of breaking that promise because of what I am going to say now. I want to make one reference to something the Minister of Finance said in his radio speech last Friday night and I make it because it seems to me it underlines my contention that the present situation is an unhappy one. I shall not go into the details of the speech he made. I am glad we live in the kind of country where he had the freedom last Friday night, as I had the same freedom a couple of weeks earlier, to express to the people of Canada by radio our views on what is happening here in parliament; but it did seem to me the minister made a very revealing statement when he told the Canadian people over a trans-Canada network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the purpose of the closure rule is to make it possible to bring to an end a protracted debate-and I emphasize this latter point-or to enable the government to meet a timetable.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the revised version.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the present and I will not talk about the past or how the closure rule was used in the pipe-line debate. We have had a new rule given to us by the Minister of Finance who is the house leader. He has announced it to the entire country. We have had it announced that on any occasion when the government feels it must meet a timetable, or when it wants to meet a timetable, or when it has committed itself to some private corporation that it will meet a timetable, it has the right to resort to the use of the closure rule.
One of the strange things about rules-and I have discovered this in discussing rules with people outside of parliament who are showing more interest in them than they used to-is that all the rules of parliament are not contained in the standing orders. The rules of parliament consist in the standing orders and in the way in which those standing orders have been interpreted. That is the reason we get into these long debates. That is also the reason such big books as Beauchesne's third edition-and many others including May, Bourinot, Campion and all the rest- get printed. The fact is that the practices of parliament are determined not only by the simple clear-cut rules in our standing orders but by precedent and by interpretation. We now have a new interpretation and so far as the government is concerned it is just as much a part of our way of doing things here as if it were spelled out in the standing orders themselves.
I remind the Minister of Finance that actually there is nothing in standing order No. 33, the closure rule, which says what its purpose is. I accept the first part of his statement that the purpose of the closure rule is to enable the government to bring to an end a protracted debate. The reason I accept it is because, like the Minister of Finance, I have read just about everything there is to read concerning the closure rule. I have read in full the debate that took place in 1913 when the rule was written into our standing orders. I have read practically all the debates in which closure was applied in 1913, 1917, 1921, 1926 and 1932.
Mr. Chairman, nowhere in any of the vast amount of material that can be read on closure did any one ever suggest that the purpose of the closure rule was to enable the government to meet a timetable. Plenty of authorities, including Sir Robert Borden who introduced the closure rule, Mr. Arthur Meighen who appears to have had something to do with drafting it, and others who have used it across the years, admit, claim and affirm that its purpose is to enable the government to bring to an end a protracted debate.
House of Commons
When those who gave birth to the rule and used it in previous sessions referred to it they gave as examples of protracted debate, two, three or five weeks on one clause of a bill. The occasions when it was used in the past, except for the most recent past, were occasions when debate had gone on for weeks or even months. In other words, Mr. Chairman, until 1956 there was no question about it; the only purpose of the closure rule was to enable the government to bring to an end a protracted debate and there was no question but that "protracted" meant weeks or months.
Now, however, we have the precedent established in the recent debate when the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave notice of closure at the end of the first speech at the first stage of the debate, plus all the precedents in the recent debate regarding closure, and in addition to that we have this interpretation given by the Minister of Finance: Any time the government is in a jam as to a timetable, any time the government has to meet a commitment it has made to someone else, it is justified in using the closure rule, because the Minister of Finance, the house leader, has personally told the country that is its purpose.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I say this parliament cannot continue under the direction of a government which thinks in those terms. I had dared to hope-yes, even I had dared to hope-that the government had learned some lessons because of the experiences we went through in the month of May and the early part of June of this year. If the government was not impressed by the arguments we were making from this side of the house I had hoped that it would have been impressed by the editorial comments in newspapers across the country, particularly editorial comments in newspapers like the Toronto Star and the Winnipeg Free Press which have been well known as supporters of the Liberal party across the years.
Lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, despite all these editorials, despite all the reasons we might have had to believe the government would have learned its lesson and realized that it cannot wound parliament and go on as if nothing had happened, when it is all over the Minister of Finance takes to the radio and announces to the people of Canada a new rule: From here on any time one man in the cabinet wants something that means meeting a timetable which is inconvenient for parliament, we have the right to use the closure rule.
Well, Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly true there is nothing in the rule that says the government cannot use it for that purpose. The rule does not state what its purpose is

House of Commons
either one way or the other but parliament is governed, as Beauchesne points out on one of his earlier pages, not only by its standing orders but by its traditions, practices and precedents, and by the interpretations placed on its rules and standing orders across the years.
Until this recent occasion there was no question as to what the interpretation of the closure rule was but now we have this disgraceful precedent which we went through so far as the use of closure is concerned in May and June of 1956; and we have this equally disgraceful interpretation which my friend the Minister of Finance has placed on the closure rule.
As hon. members are aware there are other aspects of the present situation into which I could go but I shall avoid confusing the issue at this time. It seems to me, in addition to the atmosphere in which we find ourselves, that this one point in the minister's speech which I have emphasized is an indication that the government feels it is authorized to take dictatorial action quite properly. Because that is not so, I think it is clear that this parliament should not continue.
As I indicated on June 11 in so far as interim supply involves the provision of money for the government to pay civil service salaries and wages, we shall of course support the bill, preserving the rights of any other members who wish to speak on this motion today and preserving also our right to discuss all of the items in the estimates as they come before us during whatever period this session continues. Nevertheless it is still our view, as I indicated on the occasion of the last interim supply motion, that the government does not have the moral authority to ask this of parliament in a routine way just as if everything had got back to normal. It has not got back to normal. The only way in which parliament can be restored to the position of moral authority which it requires to carry on its business is for this House of Commons to be dissolved and a new one elected.
Mr. Chairman, we are not in the position today on June 22-it should be borne in mind that we are discussing salaries to be paid on July 15-that we were in on June 11. As some newspapers have pointed out, the opposition had it chosen to do so could have forced the government that date into a very tight corner. Some newspapers even suggested that the opposition could have forced the government into an election.
We are not in that position today. We are not able to use what might be called force. We are putting it to the government on a straight moral basis as an appeal-I have

strong suspicions that there are those on the government side who agree with us-that it would be better for parliament, better for Canada if the scenes we witnessed here and the experiences through which we have gone, and the atmosphere that now obtains, were wiped out by the dissolution of this parliament and the election of a new one with the moral authority to serve the interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to discuss what I had intended to discuss on this occasion it becomes my responsibility and privilege to set forth in a few words the general attitude of the Social Crediters in this house respecting the subjects and the situations with which the Leader of the Opposition has dealt today at considerable length, and in connection with which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made certain additional remarks.
We Social Crediters feel that the government has brought this interim supply resolution before the committee in good time. We think there is nothing wrong or unusual or immoral in asking for interim supply in this manner and at this time. Hence this committee should pass the resolution after reasonable discussion.
There is a matter which I should like to raise which affects my constituency and I presume a good many others in the country. I should like to read a telegram which came to my office. It is dated June 15, 1956 and reads:
John Blackmore,
Member of Parliament.
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Lethbridge confronted with serious shortage of mortgage money for housing can possibly mean 50 per cent labour layoff within 60 days your assistance urgently required.
Arthur L. Batty,
First Vice-President,
Lethbridge House Builders Association.
I suppose a telegram similar to that has reached nearly every hon. member of this house. I feel most unhappy about the condition which has developed in Lethbridge. I have already raised the question of the effect upon my constituency brought about by the increase in the rediscount rate by the Bank of Canada. I believe that the particular conditions which have been brought about in my constituency are absolutely and unqualifiedly unjustified in this country. If with all our modem means of managing finance we cannot prevent a suspected inflation in the country as a whole, without practically crucifying various parts of that country, then

it is high time we adopted a different course in the management of the banks of this country.
Only this morning I received a letter which contains a statement indicating the kind of thing which has been brought about in certain other areas. This letter comes from Willowdale, Ontario, but it refers to conditions which exist in a constituency represented by an hon. member. The letter reads:
Do you appreciate what the sudden curtailing of credit by banks and other financial institutions has done to the small builders of homes and their sub-contractors? The following is a typical example. John Doe of North York used to build four houses at a time. Previous to June 15th he had never experienced difficulty in obtaining mortgages. When he couldn't arrange mortgages on the last four he started building he couldn't pay his subcontractors who had made the excavation, put in the footings, put on the floor joists and rough floor and done his brickwork and put on the roof. Because he couldn't pay the sub-contractors they couldn't pay their men, nor could they meet their payments on cars, trucks and equipment. One sub-contractor was only a few days overdue on his payment on his truck. He was working on my house when the finance company's bailiff seized it. I saved him by loaning him $50. If I hadn't he would have lost his truck, equipment and his means of earning a living.
May I interpolate, because of action on the part of the Bank of Canada! No effort has been made to prevent people being distressed by the seizure of their property. The letter continues:
Economic conditions in North York are getting chaotic. Thus we see the international bankers ordering the national banks to call loans and restrict credits on the pretence that it is to halt inflation. All it does is shake down the little man. He is forced to liquidate many of his assets at half their value-
May I interpolate again, so that people who are interested in high finance in this country can buy them at half price, thereby enriching themselves to the extent to which the poor man is impoverished. The letter continues:
-or lose everything he has because the banks suddenly and without warning shut off his normal credit. In other words the international bankers have ordered the Bank of Canada to create conditions which play right into the hands of the communist leaders in this and other so-called free countries. All the working men and little contractors are blaming the government for their present misfortune. May I ask what their elected representatives intend to do about it. So far I haven't been able to arrange a mortgage on my home although several real estate agents have appraised it as being worth $15,800. One big mortgage company told me "we are now restricted to giving mortgages on houses valued at over $25,000".
Before I unfortunately had to go away for two weeks, I heard one or two members of the banking and commerce committee, of which I am a member, who represented such
Interim Supply
areas complain about this very situation. But no ear was turned, no consideration was given to their complaints; these things were just shaken off as being just "one of those things". As far as I am concerned, the misfortunes which are being inflicted upon the Lethbridge constituency are not "just one of those things". Those are misfortunes which are deliberately brought on by the Bank of Canada at the instigation of international banking concerns. Until it can be proved otherwise, I make that statement, positive that I can prove it if given time.
We have heard already a statement, which I am not able to document to the date, but we have heard a statement that there is a trend in Canada toward greater international control of our finances. That is exactly the abomination which was attempted when we accepted the Bretton Woods agreement. We in Canada were no longer big enough and wise enough to manage our own financial system.
The first bank of this country was managed at a little place in New Brunswick, just a small province, and they got along splendidly. They did not have to have anyone from London or New York interfering with their affairs, to tell them how or how not to manage their bank and their economy. They could get along very well. They helped their people to finance production and consumption. They protected those who depended on their bank. In the light of that, can anyone conceive of a reason why the great Dominion of Canada in the year 1956, with all the economic power that it possesses and with all the experience it has had in banking, cannot run its own affa 'r I financially? Now I think I have said enouj it


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: There are several people who want this closed off. Several people In the banking and commerce committee wanted this discussion closed off, but the simple fact of the matter is that the members of this house have the responsibility to see that this kind of thing is not closed off and that this kind of abomination is rectified before it goes too far. That is exactly the kind of thing that happened in communities all over the country when the great depression came. As a result of the first moves toward the great depression the wheels started running downhill, and no one knew how to stop them from running further downhill. We had the most terrible experience during the depression. We do not want to get into that condition again. We want the wheels to be running on the right hill, and we want the right wheels, and run by the right people.

Interim Supply
I urge the minister to see that something is done without further delay to rectify the financial conditions existing in the Lethbridge constituency. It is not a minor constituency of this country; it is one of the best economic areas in Canada. It has splendid resources, splendid businessmen and splendid businesses, and it has fine industrial equipment up to a point. There is no reason why the city and district of Lethbridge should be plunged into a depression by some action down here in Ottawa. In the depression of 1935, when we came here to Ottawa and began telling the house the troubles we were having, most of the members in this house sitting on the Liberal side shrugged their indifferent shoulders and indicated that it was our own fault and that it was our own business to get ourselves out of the uifficulty. Now we have got ourselves out of the difficulty, they want to push us back in again. This has gone too far, and so I ask the minister once more, not necessarily that he speak here, but that he speak to the right people of Canada to rectify the financial difficulties, not only of the people of Lethbridge constituency, but of the people all over Canada.


Mr. Hees:: Since it is about three minutes to one, may I call it one o'clock?


An hon. Member:: Go on.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed that I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Harris Hees: Well, if you want me to put in time for three minutes, I do not intend to begin what I am going to say now and break it off at one o'clock. So if you want me to stand here and put in time for three minutes, I shall stand here. Shall we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Harris Hees: I thought the speech the Leader of the Opposition gave this morning was one of the most thoughtful, one of the most well-directed, and one of the most concise speeches I have ever heard given in this house. It was a good lesson in directness, pointedness and in background for all Liberal members of the house. For instance, the Leader of the Opposition was able to stand up and say what he feels, directly and clearly, without any fear that he should not say certain things because they might hurt sensitive feelings, whereas when Liberal members speak they have to keep looking over their shoulders to see what the Minister of Trade and Commerce is thinking about them or what the Minister of Finance is saying. Even the Prime Minister used to cast dagger looks at some
[Mr. Blackmore.l
of these figures, but he has pretty well stopped doing that now because he is leaving things to other people to look after. But I thought the speech this morning by the Leader of the Opposition was a marvel of clarity and of directness.


An hon. Member:: You are best known for your sincerity.


George Harris Hees: He told the government exactly what he thought in the minimum number of words.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


George Harris Hees: There was no doubt in anybody's mind of what he wanted to say, and he certainly said it.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss for a moment the matter brought up this morning by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the phrase which the Minister of Trade and Commerce used on the television program "Press Conference" a week ago last night. There were many of us who listened to that program, and at that time we heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce clearly say: "We violated the rules."


An hon. Member:: No, no.


George Harris Hees: I have spoken to the gentlemen who interviewed the Minister of Trade and Commerce on that program and they are unanimously of the opinion that he used those words. All of them were very surprised that he should have used such a phrase and they discussed it among themselves afterwards. Mr. Bain said to the minister, "I was very surprised to hear you say 'we violated the rules' ". Mr. Bain says that the minister said, "Oh, did I say that?"
To make absolutely sure, Mr. Chairman, that my ears had not deceived me I have just spent the last hour or so at the C.B.C. studio and I have heard played back several times their recording of what was said during that press conference. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said: "We violated the rules".


An hon. Member:: "No rules".


George Harris Hees: A tape recording has been made for me by the C.B.C. and it will be in this building very shortly. In fact, I am advised by my colleague the hon. member for York West that the recording is here now and I cordially invite any minister or any hon.

member who would like to hear the voice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce clearly say, "we violated the rules", to listen to him say it in the opposition lobby right now. That will clear up this whole matter for all time. It will clear up the Prime Minister's attempt to mislead the house with regard to this matter and also the very direct attempt this morning of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he denied having said these very damaging words. As I say, if there is any doubt in anybody's mind the tape recording made by the C.B.C. in the last hour from their own recording of the proceedings that took place on that evening is in the opposition lobby for anyone who wishes to listen to it. So let us have no more-


Mr. McCann:: Oh, go out and entertain yourself.


George Harris Hees: I have entertained myself very much listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce say what I said he said.


James Joseph McCann: I heard it and he did not
say it.


George Harris Hees: Then I invite you to go out into the opposition lobby and hear him say it over again for your benefit. Go ahead. You see, that is what we run up against. Ministers make statements-


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask a question?


George Harris Hees: Certainly.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Would the hon. gentleman excuse me? I would prefer to go out and hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce rather than to listen to the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: That suits me very well because I do not think-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: You do not think, period.


George Harris Hees: -that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has ever added to the proceedings of this house either while speaking or while listening.


James Joseph McCann: More than you.


Mrs. Shipley:: A great deal.


George Harris Hees: I see that the member for St. Lawrence-St. George cannot even make up his own mind on the little matter of whether or not he will leave the house. He said definitely he would. Then he went outside and said to himself, "My gosh, maybe I have not done the right thing. I might miss something." So he turned right around and came back in. Now he is going out again. He cannot decide whether he wants to stay in or go out.


An hon. Member:: He will not miss much.
House of Commons


George Harris Hees: That is a good example of the kind of decisions that are made on the other side of the house. The statement that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made, "we violated the rules", is nothing new in this house as far as the government is concerned, this tired, old gang of power-hungry politicians, because that is the concept of government that the cabinet has been developing over the past few years. That concept simply is that if the rules suit the government the government will abide by the rules, but if the rules do not suit the government they will change the rules without allowing one word of protest, one question of privilege, one point of order to be raised. They will summon their majority and by using the rule of might makes right they will bring about whatever rule change suits their desire at the moment.
During the pipe line debate we saw rules of parliamentary procedure that have been built up over several hundred years in the British parliament and during the past hundred years in this parliament thrown out the window. They did not suit the government's purpose. It became very clear that if a rule impeded the will of the government the government would simply change the rule. That is how dictatorships are born. That is how dictatorship became a reality in this chamber in the last few weeks. Of course, this could only be made possible by the complete subordination of the chair by the cabinet, and that all who were in the chamber during that debate or who were sitting in the galleries very clearly saw.


Marie Ann Shipley: Oh, speak for yourself.


George Harris Hees: I am speaking for myself. I am at least doing what no Liberal member is allowed to do in this house. I am speaking my own views without fear of-


Mr. Sinclair:: Of what?


George Harris Hees: -being told that I do not have the right to stand up and speak my views. I am doing exactly what the hon. member for Timiskaming has advised me to do.


James Sinclair: What happened when the hon. member for Calgary South tried to get up to speak on the Tory roster?


George Harris Hees: When the hon. member for Calgary South rose to speak he was allowed to speak, and-


James Sinclair: He was cut off.


George Harris Hees: -he was listened to. I believe he spoke oftener than any other Conservative member.


James Sinclair: Oh, oh!

House of Commons


George James McIlraith: The Tories tried to cut
him off.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the voluble Minister of Fisheries why more people on his side of the house, more Liberal members, did not have the courage to get up on their feet and speak on behalf of this measure that the government jammed down the throats of members of parliament and the Canadian people.


James Sinclair: Fifty-three members did.


George Harris Hees: I noticed that the minister confined all his remarks to heckling and speaking from his seat. He did not have the courage to stand up and speak on behalf of the measure he heralded so widely. He simply sat and, with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, confined his contribution to snide remarks made from the security of a large majority and while sitting in his seat.


James Sinclair: Fifty-three Liberals spoke; eight ministers.


George Harris Hees: As I have said, Mr. Chairman, the creation of this dictatorship in parliament was only made possible by the complete subordination of the Chair to the wishes of the government. It is very obvious that between ten o'clock on the night of Thursday, May 31, and eleven o'clock on the morning of Friday, June 1, a gun was put to the head of the Speaker and probably the Deputy Speaker. There is no doubt that the Speaker was told either to toe the line along with the rest of his colleagues or that his future in the Liberal party was through. It was a very difficult decision for any man to make, but by means of that threat he was obviously forced by the government to do their bidding. When he stood up at eleven o'clock on Friday morning, June 1, black Friday as far as this parliament is concerned, he carried out completely the orders of the government.
During the whole debate the operation of ;he telegraph system between the Minister of Finance, under the dictation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and whoever happened to be the occupant of the chair at any particular time, was very obvious. During the expulsion of the hon. member for Eglinton it was obvious that all moves were dictated by the Minister of Finance. During most of the rest of the debate the Chair obeyed the dictates of the government and the messages were conveyed to the Chair through the Minister of Finance.
What the people of Canada thought of the government's conduct in bringing in and jamming this pipe-line bill down the throats of parliament and of the Canadian people, their conduct in parliament, and the conduct they forced upon parliament was very clearly

revealed by two Gallup polls, one taken immediately before the debate and one taken immediately after it.
I think these results are interesting. Immediately before the debate the Gallup poll reported the following: Of all the people asked which party they would support if a general election were held on that day, 48 per cent of the people said they would vote Liberal, 30 per cent Conservative, 13 per cent C.C.F. and 7 per cent Social Credit. In the poll immediately after this debate took place, these were the results: 43 per cent said they would vote Liberal, 34 per cent said they would vote Conservative, 15 per cent said they would vote C.C.F. and 6 per cent said they would vote Social Credit. Hence as a result of this debate the Liberal party lost 5 points, dropping from 48 to 43. The Conservatives picked up 4 points, going from 30 to 34. The C.C.F. who opposed the government alongside the Conservative party picked up 2 points, going from 13 to 15. The Social Credit party-quite deservedly for having tagged along hanging on to the coattails of the Liberal party on this matter-lost 1 of their few points; they dropped from 7 to 6. So, Mr. Chairman, that shows you what the people of Canada thought of the pipe line bill and of the way in which the government conducted itself in jamming it down the throats of parliament and the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Saskatchewan.


George Harris Hees: Do I hear some bold Liberals talking about any of the three provincial elections that just took place? Surely not. I am sure my ears deceived me. I am sure they would not speak of those sad matters at this present time. So, Mr. Chairman, I back up completely what my leader said this morning in dealing with this matter. I think that the opinions expressed by the people of Canada, as shown by the latest Gallup poll, describe more clearly than can any words just what the people of Canada think of the measure which this government has recently jammed through parliament and of the conduct of that party and this government in bending the rules to suit their wishes of the moment.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report the resolution?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman,-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the hon. member going to speak to the resolution?


John George Diefenbaker: I rise for the purpose of securing the confirmation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a voice reproduction of the interview which he gave over the C.B.C. a few days ago. I have before me a record of the press conference of June 13, 1956. I have read this record and now, in the last few moments, have been able to hear reproduced in the characteristically mellifluous language of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was that word? Was it "meticulous"?


John George Diefenbaker: Ridiculous? I have no doubt that that applies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought the hon.
member said "meticulous".


John George Diefenbaker: I was trying to be reasonably restricted in my language, but I thank the minister for his contribution, because no word describes better the contribution that he made on that occasion. I have before me the transcript which reads as follows:
Our guest is the Rt. Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Trade and Commerce. Our chairman is Robert McKeown, Ottawa editor of Weekend magazine. Members of the press are George Bain of the Toronto Globe and Mail, Arthur McKenna, Ottawa correspondent of the Wall Street Journal and Canadian Dow-Jones, and Stanley Burke of the Vancouver Sun.
And then as the matter goes on we come to page 15, towards the latter part of the questioning, where the following appears:
Do you take the position that all the procedural wrangle that there was in the House of Commons was mere obstruction and wasn't based on violation of rules or attempted violation of rules by the government?
Howe: Oh no, we violated the rules.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What I said was, "We violated no rules".


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, the record out there reveals the truth. Just go out and listen to it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read the rest of the paragraph.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read the rest of it, but it does not alter the situation.
We-the closure is, well, it is in the rule book, it is put there-even Angus Maclnnis said that it is the duty of the government to use it in the face of obstruction.
Those are all the words, but the material words are that admission and confession by the minister,-and he could do no other, Mr. Chairman-"We violated the rules". When the minister today denied having made that statement, it was either on the basis 67509-336i
House of Commons
of the fact that he was trying to delude the house or he may have conveniently forgotten words that were heard everywhere in Canada, words that gave supporting evidence-if that was needed at all-of the fact that they had indeed violated the rules as they have never before been violated at any time in the history of representative government. I also note that he made a reference to myself -and I shall refer to that-at page 14 where he used these words:
We anticipated the delaying tactics-the obstruction-and you remember that before the bill was ever debated, Mr. Coldwell stated that his party would obstruct by every known way in the rule book, and Mr. Diefenbaker stated that this would be the filibuster of filibusters, and you remember it took us several hours to even get the bill- to get the resolution introduced.
Mr. Chairman, I do not often deny statements that are made, whether loose or untrue.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not safe.


John George Diefenbaker: But the statement in question by my right hon. friend is not based on the facts. I have before me the only reference that I ever made outside of this house to the question and I read it now because I read it then during the course of a radio broadcast. The broadcast was given in the month of March. This is what I said:
In July, 1955, the Conservative party fought, under the inspiring leadership and generalship of George Drew, for the restoration of parliamentary supremacy. That was when Mr. Howe tried to force through parliament the grant to himself of a blank cheque of absolute and dictatorial powers, under the Defence Production Act.
That battle we won.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This one you lost.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg the minister's pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The next one you lost.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend says we lost the last one. We did so. They changed the rules between innings. They threw the rule book out. They did not dare to trust to the ordinary, traditional procedure of parliament. We lost the last one in parliament. We will give you an opportunity -as you were challenged to do over and over again-to go to the country now and let the people decide with regard to this matter.


James Joseph McCann: What about Saskatchewan?


John George Diefenbaker: You answered us in
parliament with your majority of automatons that jumped at your command. But no government in all the history of this country has ever been so taunted and challenged to go to the country as has this

House of Commons
government in the last two weeks. How do they meet it? They meet it with fear, maintaining silence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How could anyone look across this aisle and fear?


John George Diefenbaker: I will deal with that in a few minutes when I finish this quotation. I said:
That battle we won.
That was one time when the Prime Minister was able to do what, in his heart of hearts, he has wanted to do and that is uphold parliament. It could only be done after my hon. friend went on a fishing trip. Then, when the hon. gentleman was away, parliament won. This pipe line debate took place at a time when the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not think it convenient to go on such a trip. I continue the quotation:
But let me tell you that the fight we put on then will appear but a skirmish beside the battle we shall wage when the bill regarding Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, comes before parliament.
Those are the remarks I made. Nowhere was there any mention of a filibuster.


James Joseph McCann: Now, you are getting funny.


John George Diefenbaker: There was a declaration that the opposition was going to take its stand on behalf of the rights of parliament and on behalf of the things in which it believes. None of us expected then that this government would ever have done what it did. It tore up the rule book. Three hundred years ago a representative of the crown removed from the Journals record two pages concerning two certain dates. In this case all the government did, with the assistance of the Speaker, was simply something that can only take place in one part of the world and that is when crossing the international date line in an easterly direction; they said today is yesterday.
Yes, we have challenged you to go to the country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In a feeble kind of a way.


John George Diefenbaker: Feeble? What must we do? Tear up the rules and walk over there and shove you out? Is that what you want? We simply say to you, you dare not do it. You are afraid. You are silent. You tore up the rules and you destroyed the constitution. You did all those things. But, sir, never before has a government with such an overwhelming majority, as numerous as the sands of the sea, been taunted, challenged and dared so frequently. But there they sit.

The interruptions in which they indulge are all we get. They dare not take the chance.
Now, sir, I am going to make a suggestion. We realize that the Minister of Finance is a great believer in cyclical budgeting, at least he inherited the mantle of the former minister and was a member of the government that brought forth the proposition that cyclical budgeting was indeed the essence of good parliamentary procedure. Cyclical budgeting in the last seven or eight years has consisted of reducing taxes just before an election. You reduced taxation in 1949 just before the election. I think some income taxes went down 30 per cent.


Walter Edward Harris: And in 1955.


John George Diefenbaker: In 1953; we will deal with that in a moment. In 1949 there was a big cut. Then, came the election with the attendant success and up went taxes. There was nothing more heard about it until 1953 when, as if again by coincidence, taxation was reduced. The trivial reductions in 1955 are meaningless. They do not win elections. This is my suggestion. If all you want is the opportunity to reduce taxation, to hold out the bait that you held out in 1949 and in 1953, let us have a baby budget. You will have the opportunity now to introduce one and also to interlard it with promises of health insurance. Bring those things in right now, and then go to the country. You will have all the benefits, all the advantages of cyclical budgeting. Besides that you will be able to go to the country now at a time when things are so favourable to you as you contend. We will support your baby budget. We will help it through. Then, you will have no other excuse for not going to the country.
They dare not go, Mr. Chairman; they know that across Canada the people are aroused as never before.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The voice of Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend should not speak about that. The voice of Saskatchewan did not say anything particularly favourable to the Liberal party. The only thing it showed was that the ambitious plans and the promises of a few weeks ago were dissipated in the light of experience.
I again suggest this. Do not worry about Saskatchewan. You might also think of the province of New Brunswick. Some of my hon. friends over there are the ones who made such a magnificent contribution in the province of Quebec a few days ago.


Jean Lesage: It was much better than the Tories in Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: Not very much better.


George Harris Hees: How about the Tories in New Brunswick?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend the minister interrupted me a moment ago. I say this for him. He was the last to see the light in the province of Quebec. He finally went down against his better judgment, and he and the other ministers who went into Quebec found that their interference there brought them dividends which they certainly did not expect. They were just going to wipe out that government.


Jean Lesage: You do not know how to read the newspapers. You do not know what happened in my own constituency.


George Harris Hees: You get up and tell us what happened.


Jean Lesage: I will.


John George Diefenbaker: I think my hon. friend the minister often trades in his constituency and that was the result that was achieved in his own constituency. But go to the country now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who was elected in Prince Albert?


John George Diefenbaker: I have often thought of my hon. friend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as a "Gliberal". He would believe anything twice, as Mencken once said. My suggestion is this. This parliament has lost its prestige. This parliament no longer speaks in accents of authority. This parliament no longer represents the integrity and dignity of the people of Canada. These things cannot be achieved by this institution in its piesent form, and I say that in no partisan sense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends laugh. This is but a hollow shell of its former self. It has been discredited as no other parliament has been by the malicious actions of this government, two or three ministers, all of whom have contributed to reducing it to possible servitude because of the majority the government possesses. The Minister of Trade and Commerce with unaccustomed truthfulness admitted to the people the other day: "We violated-


An hon. Member:: No rules.


John George Diefenbaker: -the rules. Mr. Chairman, the Scriptures speak of those who have ears and cannot hear. Let those of you who have ears of that kind go out into the lobby and listen and be convinced.


James Joseph McCann: You got that out of the almanac.
House of Commons


George Harris Hees: Ask the C.B.C., which made the recording.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the C.B.C. recording here. Out in the lobby is the recording-


George Harris Hees: Made by the C.B.C.


John George Diefenbaker: -made by the C.B.C., the sacred instrument which is under the direction of the Minister of National Revenue, and I say that with great respect for the C.B.C.


James Joseph McCann: It is the first time you have ever had any respect for it.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that so? The C.B.C. does not deceive. I ask the Minister of National Revenue to go out in the lobby and get a photostatic copy by ear. He knows something about photostats and in the lobby he can get a photostatic copy by ear of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce actually said.


George Harris Hees: Go out and get educated.


John George Diefenbaker: When I mention photostats, Mr. Chairman, I speak of a subject I know the Minister of National Revenue will remember as long as he has memory.
Bring in the baby budget; bring in the taxes; make an alteration of the tax now imposed in connection with the C.B.C. Go to the country; see if we cannot restore this institution and give it a heart and soul, such as it used to have, rather than leaving it as it is, an empty shell consisting only of individuals; a parliament deprived of its great dignity, emasculated as a result of the actions of men who although they hold ministerial positions and give lip service to democracy have attempted to destroy it in the last few weeks.
I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance what would happen to justice in this country if every time you had a court case that was difficult you were permitted to say, "The rules of evidence do not apply here; let us set them aside. After all, we cannot win under the rules and that being so let us alter the rules or destroy them if necessary." I ask the minister how long justice would prevail in our country under those circumstances? How long would order exist? How long would decency be preserved? That is exactly what has happened here in this house. No one who went through the experience of two or three weeks ago can ever again feel as those of us who respect parliament felt concerning this institution, which was great in its achievements in the past regardless of what party was in power.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the Minister of Finance dared not deny collaboration on his part with the Speaker. He would

House of Commons
not deny that ministers saw the Speaker between Thursday evening and Friday morning when the Speaker came into the chair. "Government and Parliament" by Herbert Morrison, regarding the Speaker in England, says:
. . . but upon being appointed Speaker he rigorously cuts off his party affiliations. He declares his honourable intention of being the impartial servant of the house as a whole and that in particular he will do his best to safeguard the rights of minorities.
Today the Minister of Finance was given the opportunity by the Leader of the Opposition to deny that he had contributed his helpful co-operation to the Speaker-or that some ministers did-between 10 o'olock on Thursday evening and 11 o'clock on Friday morning. When the minister did not deny that today the whole picture became perfectly clear, a picture that is a negation of what parliamentary government should be. When a man in the high and honourable position of Speaker finds himself subject to the suggestions and the direct or indirect influence of ministers of the crown, such a thing reveals in its naked awfulness what happened to parliament only three weeks ago.
We vote you interim supply on this occasion-
.


An hon. Member:: 
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal this afternoon as to whether or not the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that we-meaning the government-violated the rules of this house. As I listened today I wondered if perhaps it is not rather irrelevant whether or not the minister said that because I am sure no one, and least of all the Minister of Trade

and Commerce, would presume to think of him as an authority on parliamentary procedure. I would think it would be very doubtful whether or not the minister would know if the rules had been violated. However, from the investigations I have made among those people who were present at the broadcast, I have no doubt whatever in my mind that the minister did say it, but I think there is a reasonable possibility that it was a slip of the tongue. But I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if it was the sort of slip of the tongue that psychologists would call a Freudian slip, and if the minister's subconscious forced him against his will to speak the truth.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that slip of the tongue on the part of the minister also reveals a very dangerous attitude on the part of too many members of the cabinet opposite. I have an idea that somehow or another they have developed some rather dangerous conceptions of the role of parliament and its place in our national life.
I suppose most of us realize that here in this institution we are obliged to operate to some extent on the basis of a number of fictions, shall I say, although necessary fictions. They are perhaps somewhat the same sort of fictions by which a wise and prudent wife maintains the institution of matrimony, being so very careful not to reveal to the vulgar eye the realities behind that institution because if she did the institution would collapse.
I have listened with great interest over the past few weeks to citations of precedents in our parliament reaching back many centuries into the past. It has occurred to me on a number of occasions that these references were in some measure irrelevant to the present situation because parliament is not a static institution, it is an evolving institution. The time is not so far distant since the whole role of parliament was that of an opposition, opposition to the executive power of the crown which up until the beginning of the 18th century rested entirely outside the legislative body.
However, we find a different situation now, we have the executive power of the crown brought right into the legislature and those who wield it becoming part of that legislature. For that reason we have, as I say, a number of necessary fictions, necessary because there is always a possibility that the occasion may arise when the fiction has to be made into reality. One of those fictions of course is that parliament decides things. We all know that that is not really the actual truth. I think it is safe to say that we have reached the point where not even the majority actually decides.

The time may come at any moment when members of parliament, particularly the members who support the government, may be faced with such a situation that they have to use these powers which are now largely fictional. For that reason we have to be most careful about preserving these fictions in our parliamentary life. We have to be careful not to expose the real nature of parliament for most of its time and for that reason the government of the day has laid on it a particularly onerous responsibility, to walk delicately like Agag and not to create a situation in which the general public is revealed that not only are the opposition members in the House of Commons powerless against the government majority, but they must also not reveal to the public the fact that in order to maintain the stability of the government the members who support that government must do so willy-nilly.
There is a third responsibility on the government, and this is particularly applicable to Canada in distinction from the mother of parliaments, that is that the government must at all times and at all costs make sure that it does not place the presiding officer of this institution in such a position that he may be charged with partiality in his decisions. Those I think are the responsibilities that a government has and I have the feeling that our present government has fallen into the very bad habit of imagining that the sole role of parliament is to implement and endorse the policies and decisions of the executive. I think that is a most dangerous position for them to take.
It is understandable why this government has fallen into that position. For one thing, it has been in office for a great many years. For another thing, it has a large and overwhelming majority in the house. Another- I am going to mention again the particular factor in this government which I mentioned earlier in the session-is the make-up of the present government. When I say these things I do not want them to be interpreted as criticisms of individual members of the government, but I do want to point out that when many of the leading and most influential members of the government have reached their positions not by the traditional parliamentary route, there is very grave danger to the whole institution of parliament, very grave danger I think to the life and vigour of the party which supports the government.
Not only that, there is great danger-I think this danger has been realized to a great extent today-that we have in the House of Commons, wielding part of the executive power of the crown, ministers who have not
House of Commons
been trained and acclimatized in parliamentary life, who have not had the necessary discipline of sitting as private members for a period of time and in this instance-this is no one's fault but that of the electorate-have not had the necessary discipline of sitting as private members of the opposition. I suggest to you that a government which has not gone through the traditional processes of parliamentary life is greatly endangering the future value and viability of this institution.
I believe seriously that if the present tendency continues much longer no one in this chamber will be in position to rise, as the Leader of the Opposition rose this morning, and suggest that there should be reforms in the other chamber. It is quite on the cards today that members of this house may be reduced to, shall we say, innocuous desuetude, as members in other places are commonly supposed to be. So for that reason I think the government should seriously consider what has happened in this parliament in recent weeks and realize that no matter what the measure was which they wished to pass through this chamber, no matter how valuable they might think it to be for the benefit of the people of Canada, the price they paid for it has been far too high.
Others have spoken today of the atmosphere in this house now. I do not think any objective observer can deny the fact that it is an unhappy atmosphere. There are some bitternesses and some resentments on both sides of the house. There are some doubts as to the moral right of this chamber to continue because of what has happened. I believe that if this government shoulders its major responsibility, and this I consider to be its major responsibility-the major responsibility of any government in a democratic society is the maintenance and support of democratic institutions-then it will leave no stone unturned to undo what has been done.
I suppose it is true to say that no one is particularly impressed with the efficiency of a democratic parliament as a means of carrying out positive policies. Someone has said that it would not exist at all were it not for the fact that other alternatives to it are far less desirable. I think that is true. With all its faults it is the best we can evolve, but to be maintained in public prestige-after all that is a most important factor in parliamentary life, that parliament should enjoy public prestige-it is most important that no steps should be taken in this chamber which cause doubts to rise in the minds of the public as to whether or not they are really represented in this chamber, whether they support the government party or the opposition.

Interim Supply
For that reason I seriously urge the government to consider dealing with this situation in the only way it can be dealt with, and that is to give us a new parliament. I do not wish to rehash the past, but I should like to point out that as things stand at present the presiding officer of this chamber is left in an impossible position. Before the much-debated motion was moved the Prime Minister and, I believe, the Minister of Finance expressed the view in this chamber that permitting that motion to go to a vote would not solve any problem. I do not think that situation has changed at all. I think we are still in that situation.
I submit to you, sir, that if this parliament continues for another session it can only do so at the cost of a further decline in the prestige of parliamentary institutions in the eyes of the Canadian public, and I do not think we stand very high today. I would suggest to the government that they should accept as their major responsibility today the reinforcement of this focus of our democratic society, this House of Commons chamber.


Mr. Barnett:: I do not propose to continue the analysis of the situation which I feel has been ably summed up by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo. Because of the fact that the Minister of Justice has regrettably been absent through illness and because of the fact that the Minister of Labour is absent on a mission, which we hope he will enjoy, in London, I should like to take this opportunity, before the resolution carries, of bringing to the attention of the house a matter which is one of some serious concern in British Columbia at this time. I may not have another suitable opportunity until we reach the details of the estimates of the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Labour and that may be some time.
I am referring to an investigation which is going on under the Combines Investigation Act into the activities of the fishermen's union of British Columbia. I might recall to the attention of the committee that on May 21, as recorded on page 4115 of Hansard of that date, I asked a question on the orders of the day of the Minister of Justice which was based upon a letter directed to the Minister of Labour, a copy of which I had received prior to asking that question. The Minister of Justice did make a statement which was related to the question arising out of section 4 of the Combines Investigation Act, which says:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to combinations ol workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.

The Minister of Justice went on to point out that the matter was before the courts in British Columbia, inasmuch as the fishermen's union had applied for an injunction restraining the investigation. However, this matter seems to continue to be carried forward and, as I say, is causing quite a bit of concern, particularly in trade union circles in British Columbia.
To point out on what that is based, it might be advisable if I were to draw the attention of the committee to a joint letter which was addressed to the Minister of Labour from the secretary treasurer of the B.C. federation of labour and the B.C. trade union congress, which two bodies are in process of merging as the British Columbia element of the new Canadian Labour Congress. They addressed this letter, dated June 1, to the Minister of Labour, and a copy of it was sent to me:
Dear Sir,
We wish to bring to your immediate attention the joint views of the B.C. Trade Union Congress, and the B.C. Federation of Labour, re the investigation now being conducted under the Combines Act into the affairs of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union.
1.	It is our contention that use of the Combines Act in regard to said union, or any union, is in direct contravention of the original intent of the act.
2.	That, to preclude such use and abuse of the act, clause 4 was written into said act.
3.	It is the contention of labour in B.C., that as Minister of Labour, it is your duty to protect an}' union from such unjust investigation.
4.	Further, that the act will fall into disrepute, and will fail to fulfil its original intent if we allow it to become a weapon of persecution against the trade union movement to be instigated at the whim of any disgruntled or malicious minority.
5.	According to our information the action taken by the chairman of the restrictive trade practices commission in instituting this investigation was not mandatory upon him. That he, as a public servant, should take cognizance of the implications and ramifications of his action before instigating such an investigation against a union. That, while his action is unilateral in scope at present, and impinges only against the union, and one primary product, carried to its logical conclusion it would include all unions concerned in primary production, and agricultural production, thus involving all phases of the federal government's own grain prices, and agricultural products price support policy.
The letter concludes by urging the Minister of Labour to intercede on behalf of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union. In this connection I must say that I was very much gratified to see what I considered a forthright statement from the Minister of Fisheries upon this subject, as quoted in The Fisherman, the union's newspaper, under date of May 22, 1956. They reprint in full a copy of a letter which was addressed to their organization by the

Minister of Fisheries. In the course of that letter the minister has this to say:
I . . . took it for granted that it (the union) would be excluded under section 4 of the Combines Act.
Perhaps I should report the statement of the minister a little more fully. In part of the letter, he says:
I must confess my own surprise that the method by which the fishing companies and your union negotiate minimum prices at the beginning of a fishing season should be regarded as price fixing within terms of the act. I had always regarded it as exactly similar to wage negotiations between other companies and unions, and understood that the procedure for such negotiations was provided for in the Fisheries Act of British Columbia. I seem to recall that the provincial minister of labour has on at least one occasion acted as mediator in these negotiations. I therefore took for granted that it would be excluded under section 4 which covers union agreements.
The reference to the fact that the minister of labour of British Columbia has acted as conciliator is, I believe, quite correct. Also I might point out that, according to the information I have received, there have been occasions when justices of the province of British Columbia had acted in the same role and that this whole matter, as far as we in British Columbia understand it, has been a well-established practice for a period of the past 20 years or so and has been carried on under the authority of the British Columbia fisheries act. Consequently I think it is very understandable that the central trade union bodies of British Columbia should be gravely concerned at the rather sudden launching of this investigation.
I know when the Minister of Justice replied on May 21-and I have referred to this earlier-he indicated he felt that it was mandatory, when a request was made under section 7 of the Combines Investigation Act, that an investigation should be instituted by the director. Section 7 of the act reads as follows:
Any six persons, Canadian citizens, resident in Canada, of the full age of 21 years, who are of the opinion that an offence has been or is being committed against section 32 or 34 of this act, or section 498 or 498A of the Criminal Code, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, may apply to the director for an inquiry into such matter, and shall place before the director the evidence on which such opinion is based.
Then subsection 2 goes on to explain that the application must be accompanied by a statement in the form of a statutory declaration. Then section 8 says:
The director shall
(a)	on application made under section 7-
Then it goes on to explain that the director can also do it on his own initiative or under the direction of the minister.
Interim Supply
-cause an inquiry to be made into all such matters as he considers necessary to inquire into with the view of determining the facts.
It would appear from the way the act stands at the present time that certain action is mandatory as far as the director is concerned. But I would respectfully suggest that there is room for a good deal of discretion to be exercised by the director under the terms of section 8 of the act as to the type of inquiry that he initiates under certain conditions. It does seem to me that in view of the existence of section 4 of the act the director could very well have met the conditions required to be met by him under section 8 when he received an application made under section 7 by satisfying himself that the issue concerned was the proper activities carried on by a trade union in the protection of the workmen engaged in that industry, and that could have been done without taking the steps that have been taken in entering the union's premises and abstracting their documents and records.
It does seem to me that the union, in some of the correspondence they have sent to me and I think to a number of other members of the house, have made a good point when they state that their agreements made between themselves and the fishing companies of British Columbia are matters of public record, that they are on file with the . Department of Labour in Ottawa and also with the department of labour in Victoria, and that it should have been possible for the director to carry on an investigation which would have satisfied him that the union was in fact carrying on its normal activities as a union organization under the particular conditions prevailing in that industry, without having to go into a full-scale inquiry.
That may be a point that can be argued. As hon. members know, I am not one who is learned in the law, but I would submit on the basis of what has been happening that if it is mandatory upon the director under the present law to engage in the kind of inquiry into the activities of a trade union which has been made in these circumstances, serious consideration should be given to changing the law to provide the kind of protection that I believe was in mind when section 4 was written into the Combines Investigation Act. I think either that is the case, or the discretion exercised by the director of the Combines Investigation Act in approaching this problem is open to question.
As I explained at the outset, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that I felt it might be some time before I could properly raise this question on the particular estimates of an

Interim Supply
individual department I thought I should like to put this plea before the house this afternoon.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this resolution offers an opportunity to draw the minister's attention to a certain action of his or rather lack of action which is causing considerable uncertainty and some unrest to a large and important segment of the business community of Canada. The situation has arisen in this way. On March 20, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget, he announced the proposed imposition, provided the house would agree to it, of a 20 per cent tax on the advertising revenue of Canadian editions of United States magazines. Having made that announcement he took no further steps in that direction, and has consistently refused to give the house any indication as to when this legislation will be brought before us for discussion or when a final decision on it will be reached by the house.
Twice in the intervening months, and there have been three intervening months since then, from March 20 to April 20, from April 20 to May 20 and from May 20 to June 20, he has been questioned on the matter. The first time was on April 12, when he said he had received certain representations in connection with this legislation. He stated then, as found at page 2852 of Hansard:
All of these representations are of course being considered by the government and will be dealt with when we reach the resolution stage.
Just a few days ago, on June 15, the Minister of Finance would give no clear-cut indication as to when we would reach the resolution stage on his budget resolutions so we could deal with this particular item, and when he was asked about the 20 per cent tax he said, as found at page 5061 of Hansard:
I have made no announcement and would not do so until that time, sir.
It may seem to the minister and to the majority of the cabinet, who have been out of touch with the administration of a normal business operation for a good many years- in fact I doubt if some of them have ever been in touch with it-that when a decision is reached as to the imposition of a tax the point at which it is reached has no bearing on business plans whatsoever, provided that the tax is not imposed retroactively. My principal reason for rising this afternoon is to point out to the minister that in a case such as this uncertainties do arise from the time the tax is announced as a proposed imposition until it is finally endorsed by the house, if it is endorsed, and in that period 
there is great difficulty for business because of the uncertainty under which it must operate. I think the minister himself recognized that to some extent when he brought down his budget resolutions in their initial stage, because at that time he said with reference to this tax, as found at page 2334 of Hansard:
It will not come into eifect until January 1, 1957, so that those concerned may have time to adapt their affairs to it.
It is the final words in that sentence-"so that those concerned may have time to adapt their affairs to it"-which are important. At that point the minister gave some recognition to the fact that it is necessary to adjust one's affairs to certain types and levels of taxation. That is particularly so in a case such as this.
The minister should realize that while he may plan to impose his tax on January 1, 1957, that is not necessarily the time at which many business firms will make their decisions which are affected by the tax. Many organizations in this country establish an advertising budget period of one year, and they make their plans for the entire year in advance. In a great many cases that period starts in the fall. The result is that during the summer months-during the period in which we are now right through into August and September-corporations and advertising agencies and media suppliers across this country are all engaged in planning ahead. The media suppliers are engaged in selling their space. The advertisers and the agencies are engaged in deciding which media they will use, how much of each and in what form.
The tax to which I refer-without discussing its merits at this point, because that can better be done when the resolution is before this house-will have a great effect upon these particular plans. If it is to be a 20 per cent tax it is quite likely that the advertising rates of certain magazines will adjust themselves in accordance therewith. If, as is quite possible in view of the representations made to him and in view of the arguments made in the early days of April in this house, the minister is going to adjust his plans and reduce the tax or eliminate it completely, it will affect the entire advertising pattern of many of the major industries here in Canada.
At the moment, Mr. Chairman, all these organizations are completely unaware of what the government's plans may be. They know that the minister announced a 20 per cent tax on the advertising revenue of Canadian editions of American magazines. They also know that very strong, definite, well-substantiated and intelligent representations have been made to him, both in this house and

outside it, which might very well lead him to adjust that tax downward or to eliminate it entirely. They know that the minister has evaded and sidestepped any inquiries in this house as to what may be his course of action.
Frankly, I am glad to see him sidestep, because I think it may indicate that he is coming to his senses, and that he realizes that he was led part way down the garden path by those who suggested that this tax be imposed. But be that as it may, that uncertainty exists and is going to exist until such time as this house resolves, through its action, the course which the government will be empowered to take.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfair to the business of this country to expect it to continue for two, three or four months in a condition of uncertainty brought about through no other reason than the government's fumbling and stumbling, and its unawareness of the normal operating methods of the business community of Canada.
I feel that it is a wise thing and a good thing that following the announcement of a proposed taxation policy or budget there should be an interim period in which business organizations and all those others who are affected may have the opportunity to make representations to the minister. I suggest that a normal period of that type might be some two or three weeks. But if within that period those organizations have not come forward and made their representations, I for one am not prepared to worry too much about them. It is their responsibility to get up here to Ottawa with great rapidity once they know the taxation pattern of the government, and to present their views on the subject to the government and to whatever members of this house they may wish to select.
Then it is the government's responsibility to examine those views. Then-and rapidly -it is the government's responsibility to bring to this house their definite final conclusions, to offer this house the opportunity to debate them, and to facilitate this house passing either the government's proposals or whatever amendments may be made to them by the house into the law of the country so that business knows where it stands.
As to this type of situation, I have picked out one specific instance, namely the advertising tax, because I am reasonably familiar with that field and because I know the uncertainties which the lack of action of the government are causing. This type of uncertainty seems to exist continuously in a great many fields as a result of announcing activities and then letting them hang around indefinitely.
Interim Supply
As has been suggested many times, I think you must get your legislative pattern into the books early in the year. Some of it is going to have to be delayed. We admit that. But in the case of the budget, the thing that strikes right at the very vitals of the business economy of this country, I think it is the responsibility of the minister to stop horsing around, to stop living in his ivory tower so far removed from the everyday realities of the business man who must eventually pay his taxes, and to try to understand in some small way the difficulties which he is unnecessarily putting in the path of business in this country.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I should like to use this opportunity afforded by the introduction of the interim supply resolution to bring a matter to the attention of the government. I had anticipated bringing this subject up at a later period for discussion, particularly under the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It seems, however, that discussion of this department's affairs might be delayed somewhat, and I feel the subject is of sufficient urgency to merit the immediate consideration of the government.
It does not concern the subject of the rights of parliament, which was raised earlier in the discussion today. It does, however, concern the matter of the rights of a private citizen, who happens to be living in my constituency. The name of the gentleman concerned is August Fontana, who until the year 1940 operated a farm near the town of Virden in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Fontana was an immigrant from Italy to Canada, in the latter part of the last century. He became a naturalized citizen in 1903. After much hard work and careful saving, he was able to gather together sufficient money to purchase a half section of land in the Virden area. As I have indicated, he worked that land as a farm until the year 1940. During the period he established a solid reputation for himself and the members of his family in the district. Altogether 10 children were born to Mr. and Mrs. Fontana, seven of whom still survive.
Now, it has been brought to my attention, as it has been to the attention of other hon. members of the house, that a grave injustice has been done to this particular individual either by accident or by intent. I feel sincerely it deserves the attention of the ministers of the crown at this time. Around about August 20, 1940, I believe Mr. Fontana was approached by one named Clifford Johnston, who at that time was a land inspector for the Canadian National Railways. I believe

Interim Supply
Mr. Johnston was representing the Department of Transport and was canvassing Mr. Fontana to see if that gentleman would be willing to turn his farm over for use as an airfield under the commonwealth air training plan. Expropriation action, I understand, was taken; but before that proceeded Mr. Fontana, being a loyal and responsible Canadian, was quite happy to transfer the land for the patriotic purpose of making possible the establishment of an airfield in this particular area. The transfer procedure took place. The necessary deeds were registered in the land titles office of the town of Virden. Shortly after the Fontana farm became an elementary flying school under the commonwealth air training plan.
The difficulty concerning this transaction has arisen over the mineral rights. There was no specific mention of expropriating or transferring the mineral rights under the action that was necessary in transferring these lands to the crown. I find Mr. Fontana made no specific reference to the mineral rights. However, Mr. Johnston, the agent who represented the crown, as indicated in the petition that has come into the hands of all hon. members, specified that he definitely informed Mr. Fontana that the government would not be requiring the mineral rights.


Jean Lesage: Oh, no.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They were interested only in the surface rights, and that of course is obvious because the land was to be used for an airport and the mineral rights had no specific function in the operation of the property as an airport.
At the time Mr. Fontana had been taking gravel from the farm, and he received permission to continue the removal of certain quantities of gravel from the property that had been formerly his. Gravel, of course, is classified as a mineral in Manitoba. The total price for the transaction was $9,000, and that represents $28 per acre. This was the going price for farm land in August of 1940. The price certainly does not include any compensation for the mineral rights.
In August, 1954, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources inserted an advertisement in the Virden Empire-Advance, as well as in other newspapers, inviting tenders for the purchase of a lease of the petroleum and natural gas rights which underlie this particular parcel of land under discussion here this afternoon. Several offers were received. One was an offer of $200,000 in cash, a royalty of 12-5 per cent and an annual rental of $1 per acre per year. Now, that is a fairly substantial return for the $9,000 invested, and by that action the government was indicating it was no longer

interested in any claim that Mr. Fontana had as the former owner of this parcel of land. Mr. Fontana's legal advisers immediately placed a caveat against the land and there, I believe, is where the matter stands at the moment.
The legal advisers also commenced proceedings in the Exchequer Court of Canada. According to the petition that has come into our hands, an approach was made to the Exchequer Court of Canada on February 8, 1954, alleging:
(a)	That your petitioner was never compensated in any way for the alleged loss of his minerals;
(b) That it was not the intention of your petitioner to part with, nor the intention of the crown to acquire the mines and minerals;
(c)	That in the result the crown was being unjustly enriched at the expense of your petitioner;
(d)	That the crown should be declared to be a trustee of the mines and minerals.
The petition goes on to say further:
That the crown immediately launched a motion in court to strike out the petition on the ground that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court's process, and the crown succeeded in that motion. A subsequent appeal by your petitioner to the Supreme Court of Canada met a like fate.
I want to emphasize the point that the merits of the case were never discussed, merely the motion that Mr. Fontana's appeal to the courts was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court's process. There has never been any court hearing on the merits of this particular case. I think that is very important in view of the events that have transpired since that time.
Section 24 of the Expropriation Act, chapter 64 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, says:
Whenever, from time to time, or at any time before the compensation money has been actually paid, any parcel of land taken for a public work, or any portion of such parcel, is found to be unnecessary for the purposes of such public work, or if it is found that a more limited estate or interest therein only is required, the minister may, by writing under his hand, declare that the land or such portion thereof is not required and is abandoned by the crown, or that it is intended to retain only such limited estate or interest as is mentioned in such writing.
Subsection 2 of section 24 reads:
Upon such writing being registered in the office of the registrar of deeds for the county or registration division in which the land is situate, such land declared to be abandoned shall revest in the person from whom it was taken or in those entitled to claim under him.
Subsection 3 of section 24 reads:
In the event of a limited estate or interest therein being retained by the crown, the land shall so revest subject to the estate or interest so retained.

Subsection 4 of section 24 reads:
The fact of such abandonment or revesting shall be taken into account, in connection with all the other circumstances of the case, in estimating or assessing the amount to be paid to any person claiming compensation for the land taken.
Under the Canadian expropriation law it is clearly stated that Mr. Fontana has a definite claim of continued interest in this land which was expropriated for war purposes. The petitioner has made his appeal to what we might call the last court of appeal, the parliament of Canada, which seeks to protect the rights of the individual citizen. Because he has been frustrated in seeking recourse through legal channels he has brought his petition to the House of Commons.
There is a precedent for this type of case in the mother of parliaments at Westminster in the famous Crichel Down case. It was written up in book form and has become somewhat of a classic. The Crichel Down case arose out of certain expropriation actions that took place in the old country in order to meet the demands of war.
As a result of Mr. Down's appeal to parliament the land which had been taken to establish a bombing range was revested in the original owner. It had been kicked around by government officials for some considerable time and had been removed entirely from any claim of ownership by the farmer, Mr. Down, and had been made into a solid parcel of land operated by the land ministry. Mr. Down brought his appeal to the House of Commons at Westminster through his member. There was a public inquiry, and as a result of that inquiry he received once again complete ownership of the land. I understand the minister concerned found it necessary to resign because of the nature of the proceedings that had taken place that had deprived Mr. Down of his normal claim to this property.
In the debate on the subject in the British House of Commons which took place on July 20, 1954, as recorded at page 1296 of the British Hansard, Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe said:
Every citizen of good will will see his land go in time of emergency for government requirements with as much good will as he can muster-
Certainly that applies to Mr. Fontana, a Canadian citizen of Italian descent, who in every respect has made an outstanding contribution to this country and to his community. When he was approached by Mr. Johnston there was no hesitancy at all in his letting the land go to meet the exigency of war. Continuing with Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe's remarks:
-but it is taken for a specific purpose, for a specific need of the state. When that purpose Is
Interim Supply
exhausted, when that need is past, what is wrong, on any consideration of morality or justice, in allowing the person from whom the land was taken to have the chance of getting it back.
In the Crichel Down case only surface rights were concerned, and the surface rights were revested in the original owner. Mr. Fontana is not interested in the surface rights. The town of Virden is operating this particular piece of property as a flying club at the moment, and the crown is renting the property for that purpose. Despite the fact it is operated as a flying club only the mineral rights are involved. There has never been any specific need for the crown to usurp the mineral rights, which would still be in Mr. Fontana's possession had there been no war and had Mr. Fontana not been forced to turn over the land for the war emergency by the threat of expropriation proceedings.
I am not making this appeal from the standpoint of legal rights. I am making this appeal from the standpoint of very deep and sincere moral obligation. There is a genuine moral obligation involved in this case. The crown is receiving an advantage that was never intended and for which Mr. Fontana was never compensated in any shape or form. I suggest to this committee, Mr. Chairman, that is a violation of the rights of a private citizen of Canada. Revestment of the surface rights of the land is not possible, but under section 24 of the Expropriation Act reconveyance of the mineral rights is certainly quite possible. It is within the power of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to undertake that reconveyance, and certainly it is within the power of the government to compensate this very worthy Canadian citizen for the wrong which has been done.
All he has ever asked for in any action taken is that he be restored to a position of equality with his neighbours who were not asked to give up their land for the purposes of establishing an airport, and who are today enjoying all the rights and privileges and advantages of owning land in an area which has become a rich oil-bearing area. He is merely asking for simple justice, equality with his neighbours. He could have been enjoying that equality, he could have been enjoying that right had he not been sufficiently patriotic to yield to the demands of the emergency back in 1940.
I do not know whether this matter has ever been considered in cabinet council, but it seems to me that it is a case deserving of such consideration. If there is any sense of moral obligation, if there is any sense of justice, then this case demands the urgent attention of the ministers of the crown. Failing that, then, as was done in Crichel Downs

Interim Supply
case in the old country, this citizen as a free citizen of Canada deserves the privilege of having the merits of his case presented at a public hearing.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the request made to the committee by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. At the outset perhaps I should say that unlike the hon. member I am not personally acquainted with the party concerned. He does not live in my constituency, but there is a principle involved which I think goes much further than any individual case. I think it is from that point of view that my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, approaches this matter.
I note from the petition he quoted that the gentleman to whom he has referred, Mr. Fontana, came to Canada at the age of 21 and settled near Virden, Manitoba, some number of years ago. As was the case with many other immigrants who arrived in Canada years ago and were of more or less adult age, he did not have the opportunity or the free time to become educated. In many cases it was difficult for these people to even learn to read or write. That may not seem like a strong argument for what I am about to say, but it is something which those of us who have had the advantage of learning, the advantage of getting some sort of education, should always bear in mind. There are many thousands of people in this country who have made a great contribution to this nation through their work, through their production, and because of the families they have raised, who did not have the advantages which were open to those of us who were younger. That is one reason we as representatives in this parliament of the people generally should give a sympathetic ear when some person in that category feels that injustice is being done.
On June 12 last I addressed a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources with regard to this matter, and then on the following day I wrote a letter to him setting out some of the considerations with regard to this case. I am glad the opportunity has now arisen to place the matter before members of this house in a more formal manner.
It seems quite clear from a reading of the petition which was sent to most members, and of the copy of the resolution passed at a public meeting on April 21 this year, and of the letter which accompanied the petition written by Mr. Riley, who apparently was acting for Mr. Fontana, that several things stand out. First is the fact that the land was required for the purpose of an airport. The government was not desirous of acquiring a piece of land for the purpose of speculation
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
or with any thought of making a profit from the transaction. It was during an emergency when the government approached this farmer and asked him for the use of his land for war purposes, of course with compensation. For that reason alone I think it is quite clear that there was no intention on the part of the government to acquire anything more than surface rights and those for a specific purpose for a specific length of time, for the duration of the war.
Second, the compensation paid is clear indication that any other values or rights than the use of the surface of this half section were not a consideration. I was not in the real estate business in 1940, but I have been in it for quite a number of years since. I am thoroughly familiar with land values, not only in my own part of the province but in the area concerned. Certainly no one could argue that a half section of land in the vicinity of Virden which was sold for a consideration of $9,000 was being sold for anything but the surface use. It was not an excessive price; in my opinion it was quite a moderate price.
Third, it is now clear that by fortuitous circumstances the government stand to gain approximately $200,000 or some larger undetermined amount if they go ahead and accept the offer which has been made by an oil company, for which they paid no compensation. It could amount to a great deal more than that, but in any event it is in the vicinity of $200,000.
With these facts before us I think this committee should give consideration to the petition which has been presented. There is also the fact that the gentleman to whom the hon. member for Brandon-Souris referred, Mr. Johnston, who apparently acted for the crown in negotiating this purchase, wrote a letter dated December 6, 1955 addressed to D. O. Owens, Q.C., regional counsel, Canadian National Railways, Winnipeg, Manitoba, which I think should be placed on the record so we may know what we are referring to. The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
W 1/2 35-10-26-W 1st-Virden Airfield August Fontana
I have read over the petition being presented on behalf of August Fontana in connection with the purchase of the above mentioned acreage in 1940 by the crown for airfield purposes; also statutory declarations by Jack Fontana, August Fontana and Deno Fontana, and to the best of my recollection believe the statements to be true.
I pause there for a moment to point out that he makes the definite statement that after carefully examining the statements made in the petition and the declarations accompanying it he believes those statements

to be true. He was the one most intimately concerned in these negotiations. I continue:
At that time mineral rights were not considered of any particular value and were not a factor in arriving at a valuation for the acreage. Some mention was made of sand and gravel and, to the best of my recollection, Mr. Fontana had promised delivery of some sand or gravel and it was suggested he had better remove same before acceptance of his offer to sell by the crown.
Yours truly,
C. Johnston.
The important parts of that letter, in my opinion, are the ones I have already mentioned; that in his opinion the statements contained in the petition are true and, second, that at the time of arriving at a valuation of the land, mineral rights were not considered. Under those circumstances the gentleman who represented the crown in the negotiations is giving us primary evidence that the mineral rights were not a consideration and therefore, of course, no compensation was paid for them in that sense.
I suppose the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources could argue as a lawyer that since Mr. Fontana signed an agreement under which he surrendered his interests in that parcel of land, even without any specific mention of mineral rights, by doing so he gave up all his interest in that land. I am not going into a long argument on the legal aspects of that position.
He could probably also argue that the courts would agree with his view. Apparently the courts have ruled that the claim should not be received, but I would point out that the reason this claim comes before this committee at all is that there is something much more than the legal considerations involved. Even if the minister were to argue that this has been before the courts and the courts have ruled that the gentleman in question has no claim, may I remind him that that has not always been the end of the line. Not so long ago on two occasions in this house I had to question the actions of the government in making certain remissions of taxation to certain corporations in the province of Quebec after the exchequer court had ruled that those remissions should not be made. In the wisdom or otherwise of the cabinet, the government decided otherwise. In fact they argued that there were other considerations than the strictly legal ones involved.
I should certainly think that, if the government is willing to make a concession to wealthy corporations, which after all are not in any great need of these tax remissions that run collectively in the neighbourhood of $6 million, then in the case of a family that has contributed to the welfare of this country, the gentleman himself being now 86
Interim Supply
years of age, desirous of leaving a little nest egg for those who are inheriting his property when he passes on, certainly the government could lean over to the side of generosity. I am sure there would not be a word of criticism from anyone in this committee nor from anyone in the country if they were to pay that amount, even if the legality of the claim is in doubt. There is a moral obligation on the part of the crown to compensate the man who was the owner of these valuable mineral rights with which he parted without his knowledge.
If the feelings in the community of Virden, where after all the people are best acquainted with the circumstances and with the gentleman concerned, are any indication of how it would be taken by the public generally, I think the government has a clear duty to give sympathetic and favourable consideration to this petition. Perhaps it would be wise to place on the record also a resolution that was passed on April 21, 1956, in Legion Hall, Virden, Manitoba, by the citizens of that community. I might note that this was unanimously passed at this public gathering. Here is the text of that resolution:
Whereas the west half section 35-10-26-Wlst, Manitoba, was during the fall of 1940 expropriated by the government of Canada for an airport (or purchased under threat of compulsion) from August Fontana under circumstances in which It is now clear that the mineral rights underlying the same were never bought, were never intended to be bought, and were never paid for, and the said Fontana remains and is the true owner thereof notwithstanding that by a mistake or accident or inadvertence in the conveyancing the title to the said mineral rights became vested in the crown in the right of the Dominion of Canada.
And whereas it also now appears that the said government of Canada proposes to retain and maintain the said airport for future purposes and that in order to do so the development and operation of underlying minerals may be carried out without interfering in any way with the operation of the said airport in accordance with the regulations pertaining to the same.
Now therefore we, the citizens and ratepayers of Manitoba, having heard the situation and the history of this case fully explained in a public meeting and being convinced beyond all question that the said August Fontana is the true owner of the said mineral rights and being desirous of expressing to the government as such citizens, that we would greatly deplore any action or lack of action by the said government that would deprive the said Fontana of his just rights:
We do hereby petition and request the said government and the minister having jurisdiction in the matter, that the said mineral rights be restored to said August Fontana and that advantage be taken of the provisions of the Expropriation Act, being chapter 64 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, which applied at the time of the said expropriation, and particularly section 24 thereof, and that the same be invoked to do justice to the said Fontana and to enable him to receive back the title to the said mineral rights.
Respectfully submitted

Interim Supply
It is signed by the chairman and secretary of the meeting. On the basis of the strict wording contained in this resolution I can immediately see a few loopholes, in that the minister might be tempted to point out that certain statements are made which are not supported in the resolution itself by any evidence. But, apart altogether from that, in view of the fact that the government, without going out deliberately to make a property purchase which involved the rights of mineral exploitation, happened to receive a piece of property which contains those mineral rights and were in line to benefit to the extent of about $200,000, what would be wrong with this parliament giving consideration to this request?
If the government feels that it cannot go the whole way and cannot revest the rights in the original owner, then perhaps it could suggest a compromise. I am sure those who are concerned are reasonable people and would be willing to give consideration to any reasonable proposal, but certainly the government should not simply slam the door in the face of a citizen and say, "Because, on a strictly technical and legal basis, you signed an agreement by virtue of which you signed away the interest in your property, then we have nothing more to consider," and turn their back on his claims. I think that would be morally wrong, and it would be setting a very bad example.
I think this is a case where the government would be very well advised to lean to the side of generosity. As I said at the beginning, there is a principle involved. This is not the only person in the province of Manitoba, or probably in Canada, who may be faced in the future with a similar situation. I know there will not be a large number of such cases, or we hope there will not, but there will be other cases. I hope the government, by turning down this case, by shutting the door and turning their back, will not say they have created a precedent upon which they cannot go back. I hope when the next one comes along they will not say, "We could not do it for Mr. Fontana; therefore we cannot do it for you." Let us start off on the right foot this time. Let us do something for a worthy cause, and then we will leave the door open for the future to give sympathetic consideration if and when the situation arises.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I regret that it is necessary for me to say a few words at this point. I appreciate the consideration that has been given by the opposition groups to the request for interim supply and their assurance that it would be granted. Some of the remarks that have been made have

been, shall I say, of a grievance nature, but that is a matter of opinion. I can assure hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the hon. member for Dauphin, who have spoken on one particular matter, that it will receive serious consideration and an answer will be given at the appropriate time.
I should also like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I am sure the latter would expect the Minister of Justice to deal at some length with the question he raised on his estimates when he is back in the house, and I will bring that to his attention. The earlier part of the debate, however, was of a nature that I do not think I need say very much about, except that I am gratified at the attention paid to my modest effort on the radio last Friday night. I have nothing to add to that except to make a brief reference to the suggestions made by both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Prince Albert, and in particular the conclusion of the hon. member for Prince Albert when he suggested some form of collaboration. He used the word himself, and I did not recall that the Leader of the Opposition had used it. Just by way of answer to whatever was said with respect to me during that time, I should like to put on the record again what I said on June 8, as found at page 4851 of Hansard:
May I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, to deny at this point-
May I interject that was the earliest time at which I could rise.
-that I at any time influenced the Speaker in any manner whatsoever in the course of the debate.


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


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.	*


Walter Edward Harris: That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1957, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $264,409,639.92, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1957; and

2.	The sum of $12,168,792.75, being one-twelfth of the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1957;
as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved tor leave to introduce Bill No. 435, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1957.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read the second time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the preamble carry?


Walter Edward Harris: Clause 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are two other clauses, clause 3 and clause 4.


William Alfred Robinson: Oh, thank you.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read the third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
235. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $143,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies are
Supply-National Defence transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,470,423,461 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,675,484,744 will come due for payment in future years), $1,722,797,717.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Chairman,
I might say that this is very much like coming to bat in every inning so far as this debate is concerned, and I would say that even if I take my full time I will still have another inning coming to me. Therefore it will be very difficult for me to carry on with, shall I say, any follow-through in connection with the remarks I started last night.
Perhaps, however, I might be allowed to summarize some of the things I said at that time. I said first of all that I was somewhat surprised that so little concern was shown on the other side of the house about an expenditure of $1,775 million. I also referred to the extreme interest that was shown during the pipe-line debate by all parties, by the galleries and by the press, when we were discussing an expenditure of only about $200 million. I think I also said that the government indicated that they hoped to get it all back. I said that up until that time yesterday, however, we had had a speech from only one other member of the government outside of the minister. As I was saying that I heard a remark in the distance "Give us a chance".
Mr. Chairman, those gentlemen are going to get the chance, but I wonder just what their interest is in this matter. When they get the chance-and I am assuming they are going to wait for the detailed estimates-I wonder whether they are going to tell us about some article like the coat of arms that needs replacing in the armoury at Podunk Centre or some place like that, or whether they are really interested in a complete and over-all defence policy which must be laid down sooner or later by this government.
I said-and I repeat it-that it was most difficult for us over here to break through and get the information we required. The chief reason was that it is a very illusory opponent with whom we must grapple. I said as well-and General Simonds referred to this matter-that there is a hard crust of experts who surround the minister and who are responsible for bringing in each year the items which are mentioned in this book. I think I should mention again that there is every appearance that the formula used is to arrive at a total figure which the government think they can get through the house, and then work back from the bottom of their
5316	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence work sheet to the top and reconcile the individual items with that total amount.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I quoted one example, and I recall that after I had spoken one of the members from the Waterloo area said to me, "That is the way business must be done; this is only an estimate of what we are going to use for this year". Mr. Chairman, how can we honestly back up an estimate-at a time when we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars-when the estimate comes out each time almost identical in amount with that which was spent in the previous year? I referred the other day to a specific item in these estimates-I think it is to be found at page 337-dealing with the repair of aircraft engines, where the total amount is approximately $119 million. I found that the sharp pencils this year have come practically to the same conclusion, dollarwise, as they came to last year; the amount of the estimate is practically the same. It seems to me that these are things that should be examined by a committee qualified to do that particular type of work.
Since I last spoke the Prime Minister has been on his feet. He is going away to a commonwealth conference. He was asked by my leader what commitments he could make to the house before he left on the calling of a defence committee here to review these expenditures. I think these are the answers he gave. He said this was not going to be possible because our constitution is quite different from the constitution in the United States, where such a committee is used. He said that all the expenditures in connection with the carrying out of the work of our armed forces in this country are recommended by the governor general. Then he said that in the United States the policy is to have these recommendations come from an estimates committee of the two houses.
Surely those are not adequate reasons for refusing to constitute a committee which for the first time could look behind the large and generous amounts that are set aside for this purpose. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we are going along a road that has no turning. Up to this point we have never been allowed to get the information which the Canadian public deserves in connection with these amounts. If we approach too close to forbidden territory we are told by the minister that this is classified material, that this is an amount which cannot be discussed further because it will not be in the public interest to do so. Yet as I said last year, and I say it again this year, in connection with some of the information and in fact practically all the information that we are refused in this house, you can wait six or


seven months and, if you follow the course of the news magazines, you can find the very answers that have been refused to us on the floor of the house.
Surely there is no longer reason to refuse us. the actual unit cost of an aircraft or the actual unit cost of an engine for an aircraft. Surely there is no longer reason to refuse us the comparative figures in connection with what is paid for an article of that kind in this country and what is paid for an article of a similar nature in another country. Surely there is no reason for not giving us exact figures on the number of aircraft which have been produced. As a matter of fact, as I recall it, in connection with the CF-100 we were unable to get specific figures on the production schedule or the number of planes which have been produced. Yet the other day I read in the Montreal Gazette a complete breakdown showing how many planes had been produced. We can tie that information in, then, with the number that are operational.
When I think of the remarks made by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace last night I am wondering whether this refusal to give this information was not because of a dancing class mentality. That dancing class mentality is one which permits the expenditure of money for items which are not in fact contributing to the carrying out of an over-all defence policy, while at the same time we may be skimping on other items of an urgent nature.
I think the government must take the blame for the situation in which we find ourselves.
I believe the people have reached the point where they feel that large expenditures of money on this type of equipment have in fact brought them along the road toward the achievement of a high standard of living, and they may be reluctant to turn back and examine them in detail. I believe that feeling has been enhanced, has been furthered, by the government; and behind it and keeping it high is a group who perhaps got their basic training during the period of depression, when one of their main objectives was to ensure that every article they could possibly squeeze out would be obtained for the particular branch of the forces they represented. As a matter of fact, at that time it may have been a very laudable effort on their part, but now that it has been carried forward into this period of inflation it may, in fact, cost us millions of dollars which are not required.
I wonder, sir, if at this time we can just take for granted everything which is set out in the white paper. It seems to me that a halt must be called at some stage, and we must ask the minister to back up the

statements which are contained in this booklet. Surely parliament is entitled to some proof of the background that goes into the making up of this annual statement. I find it difficult to understand how the Prime Minister can go away at this time, with no commitments as to the calling of a committee such as has been suggested by my leader, in the face of these charges which have been published in various periodicals by the ex-chief of the general staff.
As I said yesterday, we do not have to say that these statements are true in order to call for the forming of that committee. Here is one man who should have known what the situation was and is in connection with our armed forces. Here is the only outside evidence that to date we in the opposition can look to as indicating what may be wrong in our armed forces. Yet the Prime Minister can say there are two or three differences between the system we have and the system in the United States which preclude the opposition from benefiting from the evidence of experts such as these.
Let us not make any mistake about it. While I was talking here last night we were having distributed about 250,000 copies of the Toronto Evening Telegram. In that newspaper there is almost a full page story by the retiring adjutant general on the sad state of the militia. Here is a second potent condemnation of the policy of this government in connection with defence matters.
I said last night that I would have preferred, sir, if the matters of principle which are set out in these articles had been great enough to the gentleman in question to mention during their tenure of office. Even though I may feel that way, that does not mean these conditions do not exist. Perhaps these same men-and we will be anxiously awaiting an answer from the minister-have made recommendations as set out here and their wishes have not been followed. We shall never know the truth or falsehood of those allegations without the committee that has been suggested. I am only going to refer to them very briefly, but I think they should be recorded in Hansard in the short form in which they appear in the Maclean's magazine article by Lieutenant General Simonds. I think they might be recorded point by point:
1.	There is no co-ordinated effort to evolve a sound and comprehensive defence policy.
2.	The Canadian chiefs of staff committee is "packed" to protect the government against the receipt of unpalatable advice.
3.	Senior civil servants can, by deliberate and unwarranted stalling, defeat the recommendations of the armed forces even though those recommendations have been approved by the cabinet.
4.	The . . . chiefs of the three armed services are denied an opportunity to confront those responsible for political decisions with objective military advice.
Private Bills
5.	Certain politicians . . . have raised the bogey
of a so-called military "junta" attempting to usurp political powers. Such fantasies .	.	.
represent one of the most outrageous hoaxes ever inflicted upon an unsuspecting public and Canadian political twisting at its worst and most degrading.
6.	There is no facet of our national affairs in which the stamp of a colonial mentality remains so deeply embedded as in that of our national defence.
These charges are going to require a lot of explaining. It seems to me, sir, that on this occasion we will require primary evidence, not hearsay. It will no longer be possible to get by on the production of a certificate signed by the minister.
May I call it five o'clock?
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 419, for the relief of Elizabeth Redling Lefebvre.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 420, for the relief of Marie Cecile Veronique Goudreau Johnstone, otherwise known as Lucille Goudreau Johnstone.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 421, for the relief of Claire Esther Cohen Weiner.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 422, for the relief of Vera Norine Tromley Ashford.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 423, for the relief of Jacques Demers.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 424, for the relief of Virginia Ruth Jones Lord.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 426, for the relief of Geraldine Isabella Johnson Mole.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 427, for the relief of Adam Forbes. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 428, for the relief of Rose-Anna Rose Crombie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 429, for the relief of Esther Pheobe Brunger Abels.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 430, for the relief of Lorna Elizabeth Cadorette Belinsky.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 431, for the relief of Benjamin Franklin Luther.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 432, for the relief of Gordon Frederick Collins.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 425, for the relief of Harold Barnes-Mr. Henderson-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, this is another bill that originates in the province of Newfoundland. The petitioner is from the village of Corner Brook, and I notice that

Private Bills
both the petitioner and the co-respondent appeared before the Senate committee.


Some hon. Members:: The city of Corner Brook.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It says the village of Corner Brook here.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is not out in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Stick:: You should know your geography a bit better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Blame the Senate.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It reads:
In the matter of the petition of Harold Barnes, of the village of Corner Brook, in the province of Newfoundland; praying for the passage of an act to dissolve his marriage with Edna Barry Barnes, of the village of Stephenville, in the said province.
Mr. Chairman, this is another of the unfortunate cases which come to our attention every time we consider these bills. There is a little boy involved in this case. He has been passed from his mother to his father. I think hon. members of this chamber and of the other place really should not be called upon to take action in cases where small children are concerned. Surely there must be a better way in which to handle these problems than to bring a petitioner all the way from Corner Brook, Newfoundland to the Senate chamber, and to have the co-respondent appear and give evidence in the same room.
I am not in a position to question the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statements made by either the co-respondent or the petitioner, but I do feel that before many months elapse we should find some better way to handle these cases. I hope the chairman of the committee on miscellaneous private bills, the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill, before the end of the session will bring in some recommendations with a view to relieving hon. members of this house of the responsibility of deciding whether or not there has been collusion in these cases, and whether or not having the co-respondent and petitioner appear simultaneously is the best way to handle these problems.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 434, respecting the Niagara Lower Arch Bridge Company Limited.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, there are two
important reasons why this bill is being brought before this honourable house, and I pray the indulgence of the house to make a brief explanation of the bill itself and to give a short outline of the history of the bridge.
This act respecting the Niagara Lower Arch Bridge Company Limited is similar to an act respecting the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company, which was passed through this house in February, 1953.
This federal act is necessary because the bridge is international, and simply corrects a technicality in the company's charter. The import of this bill is that the company is authorized and empowered to sell, assign, transfer and convey to any company, body or commission its bridge, the approaches thereto, all appurtenant structures, works, undertakings, franchises, privileges, powers, rights and property, real, personal, and mixed so far as the same are located within Canada, possessed by, vested in or to it belonging or heretofore possessed by vested in or belonging to The Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge Company. However, may I state that any assignment, transfer or conveyance must first be approved by the holders of two-thirds of the shares at a special general meeting of the shareholders, duly called for the purpose of considering this sale.
Although there is no question as to the validity of the company's title to its undertaking, doubts have arisen as to its power to convey its undertaking, and more particularly to convey its franchise to operate a bridge and collect tolls thereon. Naturally, the purpose of this proposed act is to remove any such doubts.
I would now like to say a few words about the history of the bridge. In 1844 the Hon. William Hamilton Merritt of St. Catharines, who was one of the builders of the original Welland canal, conceived the idea of bridging the Niagara river near the falls. In the year 1846 an act of parliament of the province of Canada was passed incorporating the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge Company. There were ten original petitioners for incorporation. In the same year the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge Company was incorporated by special act of the legislature of the state of New York. By 1848 a wooden bridge was in operation across the river.	,

About this time railway building was becoming very active in southern Ontario. By a special act the company was given certain rights to erect a railway bridge. In 1853, the rights granted under the act having been allowed to lapse, a further act was passed increasing the capitalization of the company to provide for the erection of a steel bridge capable of carrying a railway. The new bridge was finally built, and certain agreements between the Canadian and American bridge companies and the Great Western Railway Company were entered into and were confirmed in 1875 by an act of the parliament of the Dominion of Canada.
By 1894 trains had increased in size and weight and it was found necessary to make extensive structural alterations to the bridge. In order to finance this, yet another act was passed authorizing the issue of bonds and debentures. In 1919 further extensive work was done on the bridge structure, but this time no legislation was needed. In 1929 the bridge company was reincorporated under the provisions of the first part of the Companies Act.
The bridge company pays it full share of municipal taxes to the city of Niagara Falls, Ontario. It is interesting to note that this bridge has been in continuous operation longer than any other international bridge in the world. Traffic has crossed the Niagara river on this bridge without interruption since it was opened in 1848, except for a few hours in 1948 during the celebration of the centennial. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will recall that day very vividly because he and the governor of New York state were the guest speakers on that occasion.
Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, the directors of the company were approached with respect to the sale of the bridge, but nothing resulted from this approach. At about that time counsel was instructed to consider the question of whether or not the company could sell or transfer its undertaking and especially its franchise to operate the bridge and to collect tolls. Counsel was of the opinion that in works, such as the bridge, in which the public have an interest, the corporation cannot delegate its powers or in any way divest itself of the obligation placed upon it by the legislature, except by express sanction of such legislature.
Someone might well ask about the capital of this company, and I just wish to state that it is divided into 15,000 shares, 7 per cent of which are held in the United States, 12 per cent in England, and the remaining 81 per cent in Canada. This stock is not listed on any exchange but it is traded on the
Supply-National Defence unlisted market. This bill has passed the Senate and will of course go to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to raise any objection to the passage of this bill, but I would point out that the important words in the first part of clause 2 are "sell, assign, transfer and convey", whereas the word "sale" is left out of the subsequent part. There may be some particular reason for this, but when the committee receives the bill I think it should consider it.


William Limburg Houck: That correction will be made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
235. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the -amount hereby provided, not exceeding $143,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,470,423,461 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,675,484,744 will come due for payment in future years), $1,722,797,717.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two observations I should like to make with regard to the estimates now before the committee, which have to do in general with the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that having regard to the tremendous amount being expended for defence, which during the year will total some $1,775 million, a closer and more meticulous examination should be made of the defence expenditures than can be achieved through the medium of the committee of supply.
I was surprised today to hear the Prime Minister dismiss the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition for the setting up of such a committee on the grounds that our system is different from that of the United States. I can see no merit in the excuse advanced

Supply-National Defence by the Prime Minister. These estimates are for a tremendous amount, and they cannot be given that examination which is necessary in committee of supply. This committee denies the calling of witnesses, and certainly there is springing up in our country a very strong feeling that in respect of the vast amounts being spent for defence, corresponding value is not being secured for the people of Canada. Only this evening there is an editorial in the Ottawa Journal which pretty well summarizes the situation. It is entitled "Too Little at Too Much Cost?"
I can see no reason why there should not be a careful examination; why these generals who enjoyed the respect of the government for so long and who are now freed from their shackles of silence should not be given the opportunity of appearing before a committee and being examined and cross-examined on their statements with a view to ascertaining whether or not there is foundation for their criticism. That to me would seem to be the logical course to follow, unless it is the desire of the minister and the government to conceal as far as possible the results being achieved by the expenditure of such vast amounts of money.
Indeed it is not so long ago that I saw figures which indicated that the cost of recruiting and training servicemen for the Canadian army was five times the cost in the United States per man, and even a greater number of times the cost of recruiting and training British servicemen. If that is the fact, and I think it is, there should be an examination to ascertain why. Laymen see expenditures being made for recruiting purposes in Canada, and the cost of advertising in order to secure recruits seems far beyond the needs of the moment if the government's attitude as revealed by the minister is to be taken as indicative of the present world situation. These and other matters deserve to be looked into and examined.
Mention was made by the minister of our responsibility to the NATO countries as one of the members of that great organization for peace. However, what do we know as a House of Commons of the attitude taken by NATO respecting the present world situation? What is the reason for the change of direction as announced by the minister, in that to a greater extent than ever before the emphasis will be on air troops and air facilities? These are questions that deserve examination.
What is the attitude of the Department of National Defence toward those nations that are doing their part to preserve our freedom in other parts of the world? What about the position today of Israel, standing in the Middle East with one or two others having a similar viewpoint toward democracy and


freedom? Recently the consensus of opinion has been that Colonel Nasser no longer holds toward the free nations the friendly attitude that one would expect from the leader of a country that owes so much to Britain.
What attitude is the government going to take toward the calls for help on the part of Israel, for assistance in the form of jet aircraft? A few months agcy there was uncertainty in regard to the attitude of Colonel Nasser toward the free world. Today, as we watch his activities from the shores of the Atlantic and thence through Iraq and Iran, this man shows more and more an attitude of disregard for the forces of freedom. Indeed, it would appear as though he had in mind the achievement by himself of an overlordship over all that area.
I ask these questions because they are material to our defences here in Canada. They are part and parcel of the problem of freedom being preserved in all parts of the world. Has the government as yet made a decision on the question of permitting the export of aircraft to Israel-not aircraft for the offensive, not bombers, but fighting aircraft whose business it would be to prevent, or at least to meet, any bombing attacks that might be made as against the state of Israel?
There in the Far East the situation is serious. Egypt has received colossal supplies of war material from the U.S.S.R. The man who negotiated the arrangements is the new foreign minister of the U.S.S.R., Dmitri Shepilov. He it was, who negotiated that nefarious agreement between Hitler and the U.S.S.R. in 1939. I ask the minister what is the attitude of the government to this problem, which becomes more pressing as days go by.
The Middle East is indeed the lifeline of the British commonwealth, and certainly of Great Britain herself. That area controls some 70 per cent of all the oil in the free world. Are we not now, in the light of the events that have taken place since January and February, in Canada called upon to do our part by way of assistance to Israel, to permit Israel as a bastion of defence in the Middle East to resist any aggression that may take place against her? That is a problem on which there should be information. It is one that is of challenging import to the preservation of freedom in that part of the world.
As I read the remarks of the Minister of National Defence, he glosses over the world situation. He warns here in one paragraph; he wavers slightly in another. In the light of the revelations that were made in the speech delivered about a week ago by Khrushchev during the visit of Tito to the U.S.S.R., following which there have been declarations

between Yugoslavia and the U.S.S.R. that, to say the least, are not indicative of a peaceful attitude, what has been achieved in recent months by the turnabout in attitude by the leaders of the U.S.S.R.? Would the minister enlighten the house and the country as to the attitude of the government on the recent denunciation of Stalin by Khrushchev?
Has the world situation not been deteriorating in recent weeks? Are the forces of freedom not, in recent weeks, once more meeting a very serious challenge brought about by the deceptive propaganda of the U.S.S.R.? I have read that speech of Khrushchev, as the minister has. It contains 27,000 words, a saga of the assassination of Stalin, wherein he is described as a murderer, a mass jailer of free peoples, a torturer, an enemy of freedom, an executioner without trial, and a destroyer of oppositions. It is a dangerous thing to be a member of an opposition in the U.S.S.R., for it is revealed by Khrushchev that of the 139 members of the seventeenth people's congress of 1940, 98 were shot.
This speech by Khrushchev is a testament of tyranny and a catalogue of cruelty, designed apparently to delude the free world. One of the statements that clarifies the atmosphere is that the trouble with Stalin was that he used terror at the wrong times against the wrong people. Then in another place he said that Lenin only resorted ruthlessly to the most extreme methods in the most necessary cases.
Is there a change of front? What attitude will Canada take as one of the free nations to meet the economic challenge of the U.S.S.R. everywhere in the world? Is there to be a reassessment on the part of Canada and the other free nations respecting the amount to be devoted to defence as such and the amount to be devoted as defence by way of economic policies designed to offset or meet the challenge of the U.S.S.R.? We have none of that information. What attitude are the NATO nations to take to the mass challenge all over the world of the U.S.S.R. in trade?
In the United States expenditures for aid and the like as part of the general defence picture were reduced by congress by approximately 20 per cent against the wishes of the President and his advisers. What is Canada going to do along with the other NATO nations to meet the penetration in underdeveloped lands of the U.S.S.R., as she offers to trade capital goods for surplus agricultural products, cotton, rubber and the like? In the discussions in the United States Senate there has been a tremendous change in the viewpoint of the legislators of that country. The consensus is that the danger of all-out war has greatly diminished in the last year and a half. Apparently that view is shared by the
Supply-National Defence Minister of National Defence, as one reads between the lines. But how are we to meet the challenge of the U.S.S.R.?
Mention was made of the D.E.W. line, a most costly project; but many of those who gave evidence before the United States Senate committee, and they were people in authority, seemed to hold the view strongly that the D.E.W. line is almost obsolete before it is completely constructed. In his speech the other day the minister expressed the view that there was no defence, that Canada was in the line of fire and that there was no immediate defence against a potential atomic air war. Has there been any reassessment by Canada and the other NATO nations of the problem of whether a larger or smaller amount shall be devoted to defence and, if a smaller amount, whether larger amounts shall be allocated to defence in the form of aid to underdeveloped countries and with respect to trade matters, the purpose of which would be to meet the challenge of the U.S.S.R.?
We are left in the dark. We do not know. In order to obtain information we have to read the reports of the United States Senate committee or the House of Representatives committee. Why does the government not permit men with the knowledge that General Simonds has and the former adjutant general and men of that kind, who enjoyed the trust of the government for so long, to come before a committee and place the facts before the Canadian people? Are we receiving value for our expenditures? One does not have to have the knowledge gained by committees to conclude that in too large a measure there has been a wasteful disregard of the requirements of the people as a whole and waste of the moneys collected from the people through taxation.
A committee would permit either a revelation of conditions that should not exist, which conditions were set out in detail by the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to General Simonds' criticism, or, on the other hand, those criticisms would be found to be baseless. Personally I believe that with the removal of immediate potential threat of war it is going to be very difficult to maintain the union of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is going to be equally difficult to maintain the willingness to sacrifice on the part of the peoples of free nations unless governments take them fully into their confidence and give them the picture as it is, the assurance that for every dollar that is spent there shall be an equivalent value in defence.
In connection with the economic offensive of the U.S.S.R. I asked a moment ago, what
5322	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence is to be the attitude of Canada? Unsuccessful in breaking down the resistance of the free nations by force of arms, the U.S.S.R. now threatens to achieve that end by economic warfare everywhere in the world. Have the nations of NATO not met within recent days, and have they not redefined the respective proportions that the free nations should spend on defence as such, tanks, guns and the like, and what they should spend for humanitarian purposes? President Eisenhower, one of the architects of the preservation of our freedom in the last war, said just a few days prior to being hospitalized:
Every dollar we put into this kind of thing, if it is intelligently spent, is in my mind in the long run worth any $5 we put Just in sheer defence, because in the long run it is a constructive thing.
How are we going to meet the problem? Are we going to continue to expend amounts for defence such as we have spent in recent years in the face of an apparent change of front on the part of the U.S.S.R. that is equally dangerous to us? What are we doing to maintain good relations between Canada and the United States along the D.E.W. line, while at the same time assuring Canada's sovereignty in those areas where the facilities of the D.E.W. line are being constructed? Has the government given consideration to placing at each and every one of the stations along the D.E.W. line official representatives of Canada who will look after immigration, customs and other phases of civil government? However little they may be used, nonetheless the presence of Canadian officials there will give to these areas a realization that they are indeed under our sovereignty and will remove the danger of incidents that lead to disagreement which will otherwise be invited.
There are but a few questions that I would ask the minister to enlarge upon when he replies for, after reading the speech of the minister from beginning to end, one finds in it nothing to indicate that the government of Canada or the Department of National Defence is making plans to meet the changed world concept of the U.S.S.R. It is still maintaining that only by armed defences can freedom be preserved. That has been so, and it was so from 1945 to 1955. In no way suggesting a reduction in defence as such, I ask the minister whether or not Canada, in keeping with what the United States is now doing and what Britain herself is also laying plans to implement, intends to devote some portion-a percentage-of the amounts that are today being utilized for sheer defence in order to meet the world economic offensive of the U.S.S.R.


Certainly that offensive has paid dividends to the U.S.S.R. in the last year and a half. It has met with a far greater degree of success than its military threat and bluster during the period from 1945 to 1955. Are we to have a static Maginot line type of mind in connection with our defences? Or are we in Canada, as one of the major countries within NATO, to join with the other countries of NATO in meeting this new challenge which is as dangerous to our existence as, and in some ways more dangerous than the military challenge of the early years following the second world war?
These are matters that could be looked into in detail in a committee. These are questions that are exercising the minds of the ordinary men and women of our country who on the other hand from day to day, over the radio and in the press, hear and read propaganda to the effect that the danger of war is passing. If this is so, and if there is a change of front on the part of the U.S.S.R., are we going to meet that challenge? Are we going to realize, before it is too late, that economic war as launched by the U.S.S.R., constitutes a great challenge to our existence and is having an amazing effect in Asia and in Africa? It is deluding many people into believing that for the economic security of the present, they are making a fair exchange in giving up their freedom for generations to come.
I have not dealt with the purely military side of defence. What I have tried to do, Mr. Chairman, is place before the minister something of the world situation that we face today when communism changes its front, when it makes a detour from military activities to economic action but at the same time does not change its destination, which is the destruction of freedom everywhere in the world. I ask the minister when he replies to answer this question. Has the Department of National Defence viewed the change of front on the part of the U.S.S.R., and to what extent does it intend to meet that new challenge which is as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, the military forces that previously represented the policy of the U.S.S.R. in the achievement of the destruction of freedom?
Then I return to the point from which I started in connection with aid to Israel in the fight she is putting up to assure the preservation of her freedom. Have not the events of the last three months-revealing as they do Nasser in a new light-given added emphasis to the necessity of an early decision being made on the question of the export of fighting aircraft-not aggressive aircraft such as bombers and the like-to Israel so she will be in such a position, if aggression does

come for which she is in no way responsible, that at least we shall be assured that she will be able to maintain a defence, humble as it may be, against superior and threatening forces.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member for Prince Albert would not expect me to follow him and speak about the general strategy of our country on the high plane on which he has spoken in the last few minutes. Certainly in the short time now left to the committee one would not venture to raise such a matter even if one possessed the ability so to do. Hence for the few minutes which remain this afternoon, perhaps I might refer to some matters in a more mundane sphere, but ones equally important to the people involved.
I have the honour and the good fortune to represent a constituency which has within it three of the larger defence bases in this country. One of them is H.M.C.S. Cornwallis, which I believe is the largest naval training base in the British commonwealth. Another one is Greenwood, which I am told is the largest operational air base in Canada. Another one is Aldershot, an army base which, although much smaller, has a distinguished record and a great history. The name is associated with Aldershot camp in Britain which so many veterans of the first war as well as of the second war visited and at which they took training while there. Under such circumstances I come in close contact with the men at these bases and also with the civilian employees who are employed in civilian work there.
I certainly join with the minister in all he said on Wednesday with respect to the calibre of the men we have in our armed forces. I think we can be very proud indeed of the type of men who are found in each one of the three services. Of the quality of their training, their character, their morale and all the rest of it, one cannot speak too highly. When it comes to the civilian employees, some question has been raised-and I think questions can be raised-as to the amount of money which is paid for civilian employees in the over-all picture. It seems to be an extremely large amount. In some places I think real criticism could be levelled at that situation. But when it comes to those
working at the lower levels, Mr. Chairman__
the day labourer, so-called, or the hourly-pay man-I think perhaps a word could be said on the other side of the picture.
I have here communications-I am not going to read them all to the committee-from various organizations at both H.M.C.S. Cornwallis and Greenwood. I also have communications from Aldershot, though there
Supply-National Defence the number of men is not nearly so large. I realize that there is difficulty in the administration of this department on the part of the minister. I realize it must work in co-operation with the Department of Labour. The Department of Labour is supposed to make surveys to establish wage rates. Then those wage rates, having been established or having been approved by the Department of Labour, are recommended to the Department of National Defence; the Department of National Defence approves them and finally recommends them to treasury board, and after a long period of months some adjustment may be made. As a result there are many inconsistencies creeping into the picture, and I think some real unfairness.
I have a letter here, but I do not propose to read it. I could give it to the minister if he would like to see it, because in the letter the man tells me that he has cleared this with the civilian labour officer there, who has suggested that the matter be dealt with at a higher level because he cannot deal with it himself. This is a case of an hourly-pay man working at a rate which pays him $39.60 per week. He is in charge of the inspection, maintenance and operation of eight boilers in this base where he is working. The men who are firing the boilers, and really working under him, are civilians getting $51.92 per week. He does not suggest for a moment that they are getting paid too much but it does seem rather strange in this particular case that a man who is actually a technician and has these firemen assist him when he is effecting repairs, gets that take-home pay of $39.60 compared with $51.92 for the others. The others, as he says, get the benefit of sick leave, vacations with pay and so forth, none of which he receives.
In the mail this morning there was a notice from the civil service, which all of us get every day, advertising the same type of position at Gagetown, a mechanic to supervise, repair and maintain furnaces and boilers. The salary is set at $3,150 per year to $3,600. It does seem to me there is an inconsistency there. Apparently this man has tried, the civilian boss has tried, without results. Whenever these men write me I warn them that I dare not use their names because they may get into trouble. Apparently ministers do not like these people writing to politicians, and perhaps rightly so. In this case I have been told I could use his name. That is typical of only one individual.
I have a petition here signed by the electricians complaining that they have been waiting now for a year and a half to have their wages raised. It is true that six months ago they received an increase of 10 cents an hour, but the rates are ridiculously low in

Supply-National Defence comparison with the regular wages being paid electricians, even in that area. At one time the Department of Labour took a very small area, just the valley itself where there were very few tradesmen, mechanics or electricians, so the base was very small. Now it has been extended to some extent and they take some of the other towns within the province. There again, you get this objection from these men who say they have submitted briefs over the last two or three years showing the rates of wages prevailing in the same industry in the same area. Every time something happens. As I said before, we finally succeeded in getting them an increase of 10 cents an hour six months ago, but that does not go very far.
In so far as the day labourers are concerned, the situation is rather grim. I have a resolution, a copy of which I presume was sent to the minister, as the letter says. I shall just read one paragraph from it to show the feelings of some of these men:
We, the labourers of Cornwallis naval base, are 100 per cent veterans.
I think that is a slight exaggeration, because I sometimes get letters from people who are applying for positions there who say they are veterans and they cannot get on but there are non-veterans employed. There is, therefore, at least an element of exaggeration in this first sentence, and I think there may be an exaggeration in the second sentence. This shows the extent of the bitterness that is creeping in.
We are not getting used as human beings. Some of us labourers are renting homes: some are trying to buy their homes. We are married men with families trying to send our children to school. The ones responsible for this know very well that they cannot clothe, feed and keep up a comfortable home for their families on a weekly pay of $32.22-our take home pay.
That is for day labourers, the lowest class of pay at Cornwallis naval base. You get inconsistencies such as that, Mr. Chairman, and the men included in that day labour base are sometimes transferred to work with civil servants. As I said, they do not complain about the pay the civil servant gets, but they do feel that their own rate of pay should be raised.
I think it is time for the minister to take up very seriously with the Department of Labour
the matter of a resurvey of the pay for hourly-paid men, and I presume the women. There are women employed in the canteens; some of them work as domestics, waitresses and so forth in the dining halls at both Cornwallis and Greenwood. This situation is one which causes friction and does not tend to improve the morale in any organization. I think the minister, if he asks for an investigation by the Department of Labour or for reports from his own representatives, might well find that some of these complaints are legitimate and that a slight amelioration of them could be made without any increase in cost.
There are other places where savings could be made. If time permitted I could point them out. I might point out one in the last minute available to me. I have seen bills of lading for kegs of nails which have been shipped 3,000 miles across this country. These ordinary nails have been shipped to a base in Nova Scotia from Alberta, and the freight transportation costs shown in the bill of lading were away beyond what one would have to pay for these nails at a local store in the community. I have a dozen documents of that kind showing that apparently there is a certain degree of inefficiency and a high degree of waste in expenditures such as that.
It is for that reason some of these men who are on prevailing rates are so angry. They see money being wasted on the one hand and they are being paid a pittance on the other. They feel that something should be said on their behalf, and that is what I am trying to do in the few minutes that are available to me.
May I call it six o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Green:: Could we have the business for Monday?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I announced last night that we would have a supply motion on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr, Holowach: 1.	Have any loans been made to date under the proposed legislation to guarantee bank loans to farmers to meet financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver grain?
2.	If so, how many farmers have applied for loans to January 31, 1956?
3.	What was the total amount of bank loans applied for under the provisions of the legislation?
4.	What was the total amount granted?
5.	How many individual loans were granted?
6.	How many individual cases were refused loans?
7.	Are any applications to January 31 still pending?
Question
8.	How many of these loans were granted in:
(a)	Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Manitoba; (d) other provinces?
9.	What was the total amount of loans granted in each province?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of
Finance);
1.	Yes.
2,	3, 6, and 7. As applications are made to chartered banks, the government has no record of the number of loans applied for, the amount applied for, the number of applications refused, or the number pending.
4.	$7,323,413.32.
5.	9,292.
8.	(a) Alberta, 2,203; (b) Saskatchewan, 6,609; (c) Manitoba, 451; (d) other provinces,
9.	(a) Alberta, $1,767,157.56;	(b) Saskatchewan, $5,216,452.93; (c) Manitoba, $317,839.11; (d) other provinces, $21,963.72.
67509-337i

Monday, June 25, 1956