1956-02-07

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have a question which arises out of the answer given to me yesterday by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) regarding a particular C.B.C. broadcast.
His answer to my question said that the broadcast had never been scheduled, and I should like to read to the house from the C.B.C.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to tell him that he might find a recourse by putting supplementary questions when we reach the orders of the day, because at this moment I do not think he has a question of privilege in what he has been saying.

On the orders of the day:,


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware that the December 18 issue of the C.B.C. Times states:
Anthology on Tuesday night plans to bring an extended discussion by various qualified people of a new book called "The Mackenzie King Era" by Bernard Ostrey and H. S. Ferns, two young Canadian political scientists who are teaching in England. The discussion will be introduced by one of the authors of the book, which is said to be highly controversial.
That was to have been scheduled to go on the air at eleven pun. on December 20. On that admission, is the minister also prepared to say that there was no cancellation of this program?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I had not received any notice of the question, and obviously it is so long that I could not catch the whole of it, but I think the answer I gave yesterday with reference to cancellation still stands. It is the answer that was given to me by the C.B.C.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Is there such a thing as a directorate in the C.B.C. which concerns itself with whether such a program will or will not go on the air and, if so, who constitutes this directorate?


James Joseph McCann: My understanding is that
there is a directorate, but I cannot give its personnel at this moment.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May
I direct another question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform me what medium the C.B.C. will use to review the book on Mackenzie King?


James Joseph McCann: I suggest that this is a question which might well go on the order paper. After all, I act as liaison between the C.B.C. and parliament, and I cannot be expected to know offhand the answers to questions with which I am not directly concerned. I will do my best on all occasions to give answers when I receive them from the C.B.C., provided the questions are in a form which can be answered accurately.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[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. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday that the embargo on arms had been lifted, does that mean that the government proposes to proceed with the delivery of the remaining 12 Harvard planes to Egypt and the shells that had been mentioned earlier in this discussion?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the shells no decision had been arrived at and that matter is still under consideration.
With respect to the Harvard aircraft for which a permit had been previously granted, there is no intention of interfering with the shipment of these 12 planes unless there is a change in the situation.
912	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada showing any specific interest in, or have we an observer at, the conference being held in London on the possibility of the British West Indies being federated and becoming a self-governing member of the commonwealth of nations? Is consideration being given to these islands joining Canada?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question, which enables me to deal with it at once. We are continuing to follow very sympathetically the movement toward closer association of the British islands and territories in the Caribbean, with which we have had long and friendly relationships. We will be receiving reports on the conference which is now being held in London.
It should be made clear, however, that even if agreement is reached at that conference in London, ten legislatures will have to approve the final agreement before federation can be established. It may take as much as three years to accomplish these last steps. Even then the federation is not expected to be completely independent financially, as United Kingdom grants in aid will still be needed for some years. Therefore the movement toward complete self-government as a federated state will take some time.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, the government has not given consideration to this matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: The other day the hon. member for Eglinton asked the following question:
Has any application been received from the Russian government or the Russian ambassador for permission to open consulates across Canada? Has there been any expression of a desire in that respect?
If I might answer the second part of the question first, I may say that a year ago an official of the Soviet embassy intimated informally that his government might eventually request permission to open a consular office in Winnipeg or Toronto. However-and


this answers the first part of the hon. member's question-no formal request for a consulate in any Canadian city has since been made. I should like to add that if such a request were ever received it would of course be examined on its merits, but as of today the government would not consider that circumstances would warrant Soviet consular representation outside Ottawa.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister state when the hydrographic ship now under construction is expected to go into service, and will she be based at Halifax? Can the minister indicate the number of men that will be employed on this ship?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, there is a new ship under construction for the hydrographic service which will be known as the C.G.S. Baffin. Although it is too soon yet to say exactly when it will go into service it is hoped it will be completed during the coming season in time for a trial run in northern waters, and perhaps several weeks on survey work. Negotiations are presently under way with the Canadian navy for space at what I think is known as French Cable wharf in Halifax harbour, on the Dartmouth side.
The new ship will be equipped with two helicopters and six surveying launches, and will require a complement of 102 men. For several years the department has had a ship on loan from the Canadian navy, H.M.C.S. Fort Frances. It is expected that when the new ship is completed the crew of the Fort Frances will be transferred to it.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a request from a Banff advisory council asking for a larger degree of self-government in Banff and, if so, what action has been taken?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minisier of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that there is any urgency in

this matter, and I do not believe we should take up the time of the house-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The people of Banff think it is urgent.


Jean Lesage: -to discuss this question at this time.



REQUEST FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR NEW SCHOOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, notice of which I have given. What decision has the department arrived at regarding the request made by the Banff school board for the acquisition of block 54 in the township of Banff for the purpose of erecting a new school thereon?


Jean Lesage: The remarks I just made with respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North would apply also to this question.



INQUIRY AS TO METHOD OF INSPECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if the departmental egg inspectors work on the basis of secret instructions rather than according to printed regulations, as reported in the Western Producer of February 2, 1956?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of his question. The reply is as follows. The report in the Western Producer of February 2, 1956, implies that secret instructions have been issued to the poultry production inspection staff in British Columbia, particularly with respect to the washing of eggs.
No such secret instructions have been issued. Some months ago the district officer of the poultry division of the federal Department of Agriculture in British Columbia advised the divisional headquarters in Ottawa that. it had been proposed that the department should, under their regulations, prohibit the washing of eggs sold as grade A-l. Federal regulations with respect to the grading of eggs make no reference to washing, and there is therefore no authority under these regulations to prohibit or otherwise deal with the washing of eggs. The district inspector in British Columbia was advised accordingly, and that he should not
Inquiries of the Ministry take any steps to prohibit the washing of grade A-l eggs. This was routine administrative procedure, and was no more secret than any other routine instructions issued to district inspectors.
I should point out, however, that the inspection of eggs in British Columbia or in any other province in Canada, in so far as it concerns eggs that are produced and sold within that province, is a provincial and not a federal responsibility. In some of the provinces they do require them to wash eggs, and in others they do not. The only position our inspectors would take with regard to it is that if eggs are being shipped into British Columbia from outside, or are being shipped from British Columbia to some other province or to the United States, then our inspector would have something to do with the inspection.
In order to overcome difficulties our inspector, when he inspects eggs that are produced and consumed in British Columbia, is operating for the provincial government of British Columbia. We have standing laws and regulations with regard to that matter. When the provincial inspector is inspecting eggs that go out of the province or come in from outside, he is acting for our department. So it would be impossible for any individual to know, without going into all the details, just which government the inspector was acting for at the time.


Edward George McCullough: I
wonder if I might ask the minister a supplementary question. Could he tell the house whether the article referred to and the prices paid to producers had anything to do with the regulations he mentioned?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never tried to take responsibility for what any newspaper publishes. I have enough trouble trying to keep them in line with what I say, on occasions when they publish what I do not say. I understand from what the Leader of the Opposition said last evening he had somewhat the same trouble with the Winnipeg Free Press.	.



PRICES PAID TO PRODUCERS IN RELATION TO FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It is supplementary to the previous one asked by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) with relation to eggs. Has the Department of Agriculture or the government any jurisdiction
914	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry over the prices paid to producers for eggs in relation to the floor price which is set by the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: The floor that is set for eggs across Canada is an offer of the federal government to take delivery of eggs that are in storage as of December 1 in any particular year at a price of 38 cents delivered at the plant where they are stored. It is in the same position as the price of hogs. This government has no authority to set a price in the provinces with regard to what is paid for eggs by individuals doing business within the provinces. But this government has set a floor price which can be enforced by the provincial government. The provincial government is secured by the price offered by the federal Department of Agriculture and can if they see fit establish an actual price which must be paid by those doing business within the province. I might say to my hon. friend that if they do so, I hope they will do it before next summer out in the province of Saskatchewan, because I have a fairly good idea what you are going to say under certain circumstances.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the attention of the parliamentary assistant been drawn to a news dispatch in the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, February 4, to the effect that a late run of Coho salmon has appeared in the rivers on Vancouver island? If so, would he care to make any comment at this time as to what action the department is taking in this connection?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. It has permitted me to get a copy of the Vancouver Sun and read the news dispatch in question. I asked our officials to get in touch with our officers in British Columbia to see if there was any substance in fact for this news story. If the information I receive warrants it, a further comment will be made.
(Mr. Zaplitny.]



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General with respect to a question I asked a week ago about the Sunderland post office, which has been robbed five times in a couple of years. Has the department installed a telephone or a burglar alarm in that office?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have not the detailed information. I will endeavour to get it. I do not know exactly what post office the hon. member referred to. As a matter of fact, I read his question in Hansard and he simply referred to a post office in western Ontario without mentioning the name.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is at Sunderland, Ontario.



PROCEDURE WHEN BOUGHT BELOW FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in order to answer the requests of certain farmers. What penalty is exacted or what course is followed in the event that a packer makes a return to the farmer for hogs sold and delivered to that packer at a price below the floor price set by the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is not necessarily any penalty. It is the general practice that when attention is called to anything which is considered irregular, it is corrected. However, in so far as those matters are concerned, I doubt very much if anyone in the house or outside it can determine whether or not a regulation has been broken when all you have is the actual price paid.
That is so because in some cases the individual trucks his own hogs to the centre where they are to be marketed. In many of these cases he takes them directly to the packing plant. He must take them to the stockyards if he is going to have them come under the floor price, but whether or not he takes them directly to the plant is a matter of his own choice.
There is another means by which they get there. An individual trucker may take the farmer's hogs from his farm in a truck to the stockyard or the packing plant, and in some cases there are costs for shipping that have to be taken care of when settlement is

made with the individual who sent the hogs. All these matters have to be checked before you can determine whether there has been any breach of the floor, and they are all carefully checked as soon as the individual sends in his sheet.


John George Diefenbaker: If there is a breaking of the regulations what happens?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not known of any, so I am not going to say what will take place if something happens which may never happen.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister be prepared to table in the house the regulation under which floor prices for hogs are established?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I can explain it now in less time than by laying the order on the table. The government offers 23 cents, basis Toronto or Montreal, for grade A hogs to anyone who finds that he cannot get that much for them from any other source. It is up to the individual to deliver them to the government in the way that is set out.


Edward George McCullough: I wonder if the minister would indicate under what authority or regulation this price is established?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the authority of the government to buy anything from any person that they might choose to buy. If my hon. friend wants a full answer to what he is asking, the fact of the matter is that this government has no authority, under the constitution or otherwise, to set prices for products that are produced and sold by a person in the province to some other person in the province. It has no authority whatsoever. But we set a floor price, and any provincial government can use that as their security in setting a price which they can enforce. We cannot say it is the price. If my hon. friend wants any different circumstances than exist out in Saskatchewan, he knows how to get them.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to floor prices on hogs, would he reconsider the answers he gave on January 12 in reply to a question by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, in which he said and I quote from Hansard-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that we have had several questions relating to hogs and eggs, and now the hon. member wishes to have the minister go over some of the answers which were given a few days ago. Could not this matter be left for debate at the proper time?



INQUIRY RESPECTING FUTURE IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has to do with a question I asked the minister about ten days ago. Has the minister any information yet with respect to whether there are likely to be any imports of New Zealand cheddar cheese into Canada within the next six months?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I made inquiries at the office of the high commissioner of the government of New Zealand, and he knows of no shipments coming this way. My own office knows of no shipments. However, my crystal ball is on loan at the moment, and I cannot say what will happen in six months.


Mr. G. S. White (Haslings-Frontenac):: 1
should like to direct a supplementary questior to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the answer he gave to the hon member for Oxford. Is it not correct to say that cheddar cheese from New Zealand coulc be imported into Canada without the knowledge or permission of the minister, or any permit granted by him?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would have t< come in Her Majesty's mail to make tha possible. We have a record of any freigh that is landed from a ship.


George Stanley White: But is i
not correct to say that anybody can impor cheddar cheese from New Zealand into Canad; without the authority of the minister or with out obtaining any permit from his depart ment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no permi required, but there is a customs duty oi cheese, and the port record would show i there were an importation of cheese by shir No permit is required. Anyone can impoi cheese who cares to pay the duty.
916	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce would recover his crystal ball long enough to answer now the question I asked him yesterday and tell the house when he will table the report on the 1955 operations under the Export and Import Permits Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad my hon. friend asked that question, because the report was tabled at the opening of this session.*
See further comments on this page under heading "Privilege".



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question ;o the Minister of Finance. Does the consideration which he and his department are jiving to the wage scales of the civil service nclude consideration of the position of employees whose wages are set by prevailing [DOT]ates? Will they too be awarded an increase it any early date?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: VTr. Speaker, I suppose that one should retain lis patience, but surely it is obvious that the Minister of Finance, in the discharge of his luties, would be considering all these matters.



PRIVILEGE


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. speaker, this afternoon the minister gave an mswer to a question of mine-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege; le said a return had been tabled at the ipening of the session. He did not make it lear that what he referred to was today's ession, and I think it is quite apparent from he laughter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is quite apparent rom the laughter that greeted his remarks hat a number of hon. members thought he leant the beginning of this session of par-iament.
(Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously, the hon. member wishes to clarify an answer he has received. He can do so by asking a supplementary question and asking the minister if he meant the opening of this session or the opening of this sitting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I wish to ask the minister why, in answering this question this afternoon-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -he did not give-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be good enough to put his question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what I was in the midst of doing. Why did not the minister give a frank answer this afternoon instead of a misleading one?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I was quite right in asking the hon. member for Eglinton to ask his question and not to further comment in his own fashion as to the type of answer he received.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member complained yesterday that the report had not been tabled. I did not question the fact that it had not been tabled. I looked into the situation and I found the department had the report in print in English but were waiting for the French version so both could be tabled simultaneously. I instructed yesterday that the English version be tabled today. It was tabled today, and I do not know what my hon. friend is complaining about.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My question would be as to why the minister, in answering that question, did not state his answer in a manner that would not mislead his supporters in the house.

The house resumed, from Monday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Churchill.



SHIPMENT OF ARMS ABROAD

Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is obvious that the hon. member for Greenwood is not going to begin his remarks until some order has been established by the house, and I quite agree with the position he is taking. I think if every hon. member who initiates a debate at this time of day would take the same attitude the hon. member is now taking, we might perhaps have order right at the beginning of our discussion following the orders of the day.

Now that I have the opportunity I should like to make one further point. Would the hon. member for Greenwood please be seated while I do so. I wish to point out that too often standing order No. 12 is being disregarded. May I take this opportunity to ask hon. members to carefully study what standing order No. 12 says. I beg to draw your attention to paragraphs 3 and 4, and in particular paragraph 4, which says:
No member may pass between the Chair and the table, nor between the Chair and the mace when the mace has been taken oft the table by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
This is the point I am making further to that which I made a moment ago in asking hon. members to maintain order as soon as the discussion begins when the orders of the day are called. The calling of the orders of the day seems to be a general signal to promenade for far too many members. Often you see hon. members passing between the Chair and a member who has the floor, or circulating in other parts of the house. Certainly that is not good decorum, and I would ask hon. members to respect the letter of this standing order which has been placed there for a purpose. I would ask hon. members for their cooperation in this regard.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that under a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Sproule on February 13, 1913, in which he said that a motion must not raise a question substantially identical with one on which the house has given a decision in the same session, our present discussion is out of order. It is my contention that this house on February 1 of this session made a decision on a question which is identical to the one which is about to be debated this afternoon and which was debated yesterday. This was done on a recorded vote of 153 nays to 64 yeas. The amendment to which I refer as having been discussed in the house reads as follows:
In view of the present critical situation in the Middle East, this house expresses its strong disapproval-
These are the underlying words-
This house expresses its strong disapproval of the government's policy of authorizing the shipment of munitions of war to countries in that area not within the NATO alliance.
It is my opinion that the house made a definite decision and that the method by which the government determines its export of arms was decided by that vote. The amendment in relation to which discussion is taking place this afternoon reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export
Shipment of Arms Abroad of arms, ammunition, and military equipment, should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs-
If we have expressed an opinion on the method by which the government has been conducting its affairs with respect to the export' of munitions, I feel that we need not discuss the question further on a motion to go into supply, which has been preserved for hon. members to bring to the attention of the house matters that could not and would not come before the house under ordinary circumstances. This amendment concludes as follows:
-with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.
I feel that this house has definitely recorded its opinion as to how affairs are conducted in respect to shipments of arms, and for that reason I maintain that this amendment is entirely out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the point of order. I observe that' the question as to order has not been raised from the government benches.
The hon. member for Kootenay East suggests in effect that these are similar motions. In my submission, Mr. Speaker, they are quite different and entirely dissimilar. My hon. friend has misread them or has misinformed himself in the course of reading them.
May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to precisely what the house decided on February 1. On a government motion that you leave the chair for the house to resolve itself intc committee of ways and means, the hon, member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbakeh on January 31 proposed the following amendment, to be found on page 724 of Hansard:
That all the words after "That" be deleted anc the following substituted therefor:
"in view of the present critical situation in the Middle East, this house expresses its strong disapproval of the government's policy of authorizing the shipment of munitions of war to countries ir that area not within the NATO alliance; and alsc condemns the government for the lack of candoui with which the matter has been dealt with in this house."
Later that afternoon the hon. member foi Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) introducec the following amendment to the amendmen' I have just read. It is to be found at pagt 728 of Hansard and reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the word "alliance" thf following words:
"without at the same time making sure tha peace in that area would be guaranteed either bj

Shipment of Arms Abroad the United Nations or by the powers that signed the tripartite agreement of 1950, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and France.
Those two amendments were defeated on division in the house on Wednesday afternoon and those questions, of course, are therefore withdrawn from the subject matter of any other resolution or motion which may be introduced in the house at this session. No one questions that. However, in comparing those two amendments with the amendment now under debate you will see that they cover quite different subject matters.
I would draw your attention, sir, to the fact that the amendments introduced on January 31 were concerned with the policy of the government in reference to the shipment of arms; second, that the shipment of arms involved was to a particular area in the world. A third question was involved in the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Prince Albert, namely condemnation of the government for lack of candor. That has not arisen in the course of this present debate.
The amendment under debate today does not concern itself with the shipment of arms to the Middle East; it has to do with the shipment of arms anywhere. The amendment of last Tuesday, January 31, concerned itself with the policy of shipping arms to that particular area. The present motion has to do with the procedure to be followed in reference to the shipment of arms anywhere in the world.
Between the subject matters of those two motions there is a world of difference. However, it must be perfectly clear to hon. mem-oers that this present amendment has been Eramed having in mind the necessary acceptance of the fact that the question in regard :o policy as to shipments to the Middle East vas settled by the vote taken last Wednesday. The house decided last Wednesday that apparently it would not entertain a proposal disapproving of government policy permit-dng the shipment of arms to this troubled area. The present motion says in effect, "All * ight; that question has been decided. Apparently the policy is to permit the shipment >f arms. We will now go on from that point and concern ourselves with the question as ;o how those shipments are to be carried aut as a matter of procedure."
That involves the question of the issuance if permits; that involves the question of what 'overnment departments' are to be concerned n the issuance of permits; that involves the luestion of what knowledge parliament is to lave of the matter; that involves the question if government method in this matter, or


whether it is a matter of ministerial order or decision. It concerns the whole basis upon which these permits are to be issued.
That is quite a different field. This motion could not challenge the decision in reference to the policy that shipments of arms are to be permitted by government decision. But accepting that situation arising out of the defeat last Tuesday of the opposition amendment, this amendment goes on to say, "If shipments are going to go, it is time the house knew how"-you can spell "how" whichever way you wish-"they are to be made." This house must concern itself with the whole basis of the procedure in reference to such shipments. We are in a quite different field from that covered by the motion last week.
I point out that the subamendment introduced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did not enlarge the scope of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert as I have just now discussed it.
I would also draw your attention to a very brief review of these decisions, including the one to which my hon. friend made reference, to indicate that there is no ground here for ruling out the present motion. In Beau-chesne's third edition, page 139, reference 357, we find the paragraph to which my hon. friend made reference. This contains a ruling by Mr. Speaker Sproule on February 13, 1913, which ruled out a proposed amendment on the ground that a motion must not raise a question substantially identical with one on which the house has given a decision in the same session.
I emphasize those words, "substantially identical". I have pointed out that far from being identical or even substantially identical, in this case the present motion is framed on the basis that the question as to policy in regard to the shipment of arms to the Middle East and Near East was decided by the house in rejecting last Wednesday the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Prince Albert on Tuesday.
Then if you will look at the notations on Speakers' decisions on pages 714 and 715 you will see that rulings in regard to matters that are substantially identical are not given lightly. On page 714 we have a decision by Mr. Speaker Smith on April 8, 1859, when he declined to rule out a later amendment simply on the grounds now put forward by my hon. friend because several additional particulars had been added to the former motion which was said to be substantially similar. Even the addition of several further particulars in that case was regarded as ground for holding that the two motions were not substantially identical.

Then on page 715 we have a decision by Mr. Speaker Cockburn given on April 3, 1871, when he ruled in effect that the amendment with which he was dealing related to an act which had already been before the house, had been reviewed by the house and had been the subject of amending legislation at the same session. The later amendment sought to be introduced de novo therefore was ruled out of order because the subject matter had been disposed of already. I have already made mention of the ruling of Mr. Speaker Smith where additional particulars were contained in an amendment.
It is quite obvious, I think, that we have here a clear distinction. The only possible effect of the amendment now under debate is that it does not attempt to reopen the decision made by the house last Wednesday on the amendment of the hon. member for Prince Albert. It goes into a new field. It accepts the decision made by the house and goes on to deal with a new question arising as a consequence of the decision of the house at that time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has felt that this is at least a borderline case because apparently he has done considerable homework in order to counteract any arguments that might be made. The hon. member has suggested that this is an entirely new field. I was in the house for practically the whole debate, and I heard no new arguments. The whole debate revolved around whether we should or should not have shipped 15 or 25 unarmed planes to Egypt. The only change in the whole situation was the number of imbecilic stories through which I had to suffer.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would draw your attention to the standing order dealing with irrelevancy or repetition in connection with amendments. If this amendment is not a repetition-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point-


Mr. Speaker:: There cannot be two members in possession of the floor at the same time.


George Alexander Drew: I am rising on a point of order. I should like your ruling as to whether it is proper to refer to debate in this house as imbecilic. If it is, then we will have a word that perhaps can be employed more widely.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the expression being used. It may have been when I was looking up the authorities. I did notice that some hon. members were reacting unfavourably to what the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) had said at one point, but
Shipment of Arms Abroad I am sorry I did not hear it. Is the expression just mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition one that the hon. member used?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I was referring to stories which had taken up the time of the house when an important matter was being discussed, and I considered that they were imbecilic. If that casts any reflection upon the hon. member I am quite happy to withdraw it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before I indulge in a speech on this point of order, would it be fair to ask Your Honour if there is any doubt at all about it? It seems to me there is no doubt that this motion is sufficiently different from the other one that it could hardly be ruled out of order on the grounds suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne).


Mr. Speaker:: I would say I have no doubt as to the position I want to take with respect to this matter. I do sympathize, however, with the point that has been raised. This I think, in fairness to the hon. member for Kootenay East, I must say because I have in mind at the moment a reasoning by Mr. Speaker Black with which I find a great deal of sympathy. He said that you cannot divorce a speech that is being made from the motion to which the speeches lead. This is why I stressed that point the other evening in the middle of the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). If you speak in a certain direction and end in another, it is difficult to know exactly where the house is going, because the opener of the debate sets the pattern.
There is no doubt that the debate that tooK place the other day was on a motion to discuss external affairs. That was the intention, and the debate was arranged for that purpose. It was to be a wide debate on external affairs. Prior to the debate on external affairs the Secretary of State for External Affairs had made a speech during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, in which he said, as reported on page 463 of Hansard:
Now, what are the principles, the rules governing the shipment of military equipment from this country? These principles are the result of careful consideration and are, I think, sound and reasonable. The decisions based on them are made only after studying the relevant factors in every case submitted to us. The system of controls and checks through which policies and decisions are carried out is as effective as that of any other free country.
Then he dealt with the procedure, which is precisely what is being hit at the moment by the amendment moved to the motion that the Speaker leave the chair. It is the policy
920	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad referred to in that speech and the provisions made to carry out these policies that were hit by the motion of want of confidence moved the other day. So if the speeches are to be the same, leading to two different amendments, there is a good ground for the hon. member for Kootenay East to think that there is similarity between the two motions.
I am at the moment considering that a motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply is an opposition motion. It is one that gives the opposition great latitude, and I would not want to curtail the rights of the opposition in airing grievances. I would simply conclude this little argument by saying that the amendment is sufficiently different from that which was debated and decided upon the other day by the house, to be considered to be not substantially the same. I was not here last evening-as a matter of fact, I almost adjourned the house by mistake-but I do ask hon. members again, if they repeat arguments used in a former debate, not to make the same speeches which would have applied to the motion of want of confidence that was debated and defeated the other day. They should direct their speeches closely to the subject matter of the amendment they have moved, namely the procedure.
Some hon. members on both sides have referred to rulings that have been made, leaving perhaps the impression that the rulings made by former Speakers were proclaiming a doctrine that is new. It is the assertion of an old rule of parliament, which I find in Bourinot, fourth edition, page 328, and which reads as follows:
It is, however, an ancient rule of parliament that "no question or motion can regularly be offered if it is substantially the same with one on which the judgment of the house has already been expressed during the current session". The old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house". Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
Hon. members may consider too-and this is a point for future amendments which may be moved to motions that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply-that if the other day the house said that the policy of the government in dealing with this matter should not be condemned and if it decided today that the procedure under which they execute their policies should be condemned, then would we not have two contradictory decisions? It is a difficult point.


As I say, the motion in this instance is an opposition motion, and I would let the opposition benefit from the latitude which is usually given to motions of this kind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in what you had to say about the promenade which usually takes place after the orders of the day. I would like to think that the rather larger numbers facing me today are due to a desire to hear what I am about to say. However I do not entirely believe it, because I think it has more to do with discipline than with any desire to hear me. It relates, no doubt, to a small incident the other day as a result of which I understand precautions have been taken so that it shall not occur again.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member at this moment is under the domination of a rule which says that, whenever he begins speaking, his remarks should be relevant to the question before the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He needs discipline.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I am venturing a short interlude in this debate because it seems to me, as far as my short experience of this house goes, rather unprecedented. I have often criticized the government before with a good heart, but I must say I never felt before that the government had made itself so supremely ridiculous as it has done in this case.
That is my excuse for being prepared to support the resolution that was laid before us, which makes a very simple suggestion, namely reference to a standing committee so that a definite code of procedure may be adopted.
It seems to me this thing has gone from bad to worse. Even today we are disappointed to learn that the undertaking that was given a short time ago is evidently now considered to be too comprehensive, and we understand from the Prime Minister today that it is being restricted.
Now that we have had a little look inside to see what happens, one begins to wonder whether this all-wise government does much of its other business in the same way. Why should it all be confined to the export of arms? Therefore I am proposing to discuss this resolution for a few minutes and try to assess the reasons, if there are any reasons, which the government might have for not adopting it.
I said last night that, so far as we could see from the evidence we had before us, in these series of occurrences the government has been proceeding by a kind of hodge-

podge of misunderstanding among two or three of its members. That is my justification. To me it is as clear as crystal. This is no ordinary matter. It is perfectly clear that this matter is affecting the conscience of the people of Canada, yet how was it dealt with by the government? It was dealt with in a routine way, as if it were supremely unimportant. I shall have a word to say about the famous order in council. I shall try to give a very short saga of the order in council which we discovered finally was not an order in council. It really seemed to evaporate into thin air.
At any rate it is perfectly clear, as I say, that there was bungling and confusion and anything but the kind of efficiency which this government likes to pretend it has. As I say, it was all treated casually. When I think about these 34 centres, sensitive centres I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) called them, and when I try to apply to them the reasoning the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) put forward last night, the vivid picture he gave of arms starting off in the casual way they do start, going off across the horizon to God knows where, and the utter impossibility of our being able to know what happens to them after that; when I think that might happen in literally dozens of cases throughout the world, I find myself extremely shocked. I also think a great many other people were shocked.
The other thing I want to know is how long this would have gone on. It was not found out by the government as such. It was found out by the opposition, by parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was found out? Will my hon. friend tell us what was found out?


George Alexander Drew: Not too much.


Walter Edward Harris: Make up your mind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The shipment of these things we are talking about, the subject matter of the order in council which the minister told us the other day was not an order in council. It shrank during the course of its career in the House of Commons. I think we all know just what we are talking about, even though there has been a good deal of confusion about the matter. What a display this has been.
Although I am not an adherent of the government, I think I can honestly say I was shocked to find that a government, which after all is the only government we have, could do the things it has done and come here in a complete state of misapprehension among its various members, and then proceed
Shipment of Arms Abroad to sound off with really the most extraordinary series of mistakes. I would have thought that when this matter arose the government would have made very certain that there would not be any more mistakes made, and that there would be no further openings given to us.
I want to spend a moment or two, not long, in giving what I call the saga of this order in council, because I think it is very desirable for us to remind ourselves just what has happened. Then I propose to ask very briefly just what the reasons could be that the government would refuse to allow parliament to have a hand in the matter. If they will not it seems to me we may well wonder whether the legend on the labour publication the other day, which referred to parliament as one of the agencies of the government, was so wrong after all, and whether that is not the way they do regard parliament.
I want to give the saga of the order in council. On January 24 the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the date of the order in council was July 7. On January 27 the order in council had a strange experience, because during the course of three hours it shrank. As appears at page 599 of Hansard of January 27, the Leader of the Opposition directed a question to the Prime Minister to which he answered as follows:
I shall see just what the order in council is and endeavour to have it available before the debate on external affairs.
Later that afternoon, as appears at page 639 of Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose on a question of privilege and said:
... I should like to correct a misstatement I made through carelessness. I am reminded by a question addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this morning that on January 4-
I think it should be January 24.
-I referred to an order in council which conveyed approval of the shipment of Harvard training aircraft to the Middle East. I had in mind that orders in council were required for every export shipment, but that is not the case. They are required only in case government property is concerned. In the case of an export permit relating to private property, if it has anything to do with military affairs or if it is going to be a sensitive area-
One of the 34.
-ministerial concurrence is required by the ministers of external affairs, defence and trade and commerce.
Finally we have the death knell, as it were, of the order in council, at page 787 of Hansard. This was on February 2, two or three days later, when the Leader of the

Shipment of Arms Abroad Opposition again asked the Prime Minister about the order in council and the permit and the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, that is a document which for other [DOT]easons it is not practicable to make public.
Later the Leader of the Opposition said: Mr. Speaker, may I then ask the Prime Minister what document there is that can be placed before the house which will show what actually took place on July 7?
The Prime Minister replied:
There is no document which can be placed before the house to show what actually took place on July 7. The hon. gentleman has been informed of how the matter was dealt with. It was dealt with by communications between ministers and those have invariably been regarded as confidential documents and have to be treated as confidential documents so that the ministers who are all jointly responsible for that which has been done, even under statute, by any one of them may see to it that they are properly informed of when and how they are going to have this joint responsibility.
In other words, as we see, in the course of about a week the order in council shrank into a permit, then it shrank into an understanding and then it really seemed to disappear into thin air. I think what happened is worthy of being compared with the writings of the author of "Alice in Wonderland". You remember these lines:
He thought he saw a banker's clerk descending from a bus.
He looked again and saw it was a hippopotamus.
Really it seems to me that this order in council, which has changed its character throughout, is almost worthy of being described in that way.


Mr. Rowe:: It started out as a hippopotamus.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What we are suggesting is a code of procedure. As I say, this is no ordinary business. This is a matter which touches the public conscience, and I think perhaps that is going to become more evident as time goes on. I should like to read a short extract from an editorial that appeared in the Toronto Star of January 28. It reads in part as follows:
In the present state of explosive tension in the Middle East, there can be no assurance whatever that the arms and equipment sent by Canada will not be used for aggressive purposes. Therefore, to ship arms there in any quantity or in any ratio is morally irresponsible: and it is inconsistent with a policy of promoting peace.
I quote again later-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is this the editor of the Toronto Star speaking? Are you reading from an editorial?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am reading an editorial.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Good. It is illegal, but go ahead.


Mr. Fulton:: Is that a ministerial order or an order in council?


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have now issued your permit.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, the acting speaker indicates that I may proceed. I continue:
A better way, we suggest, would be for the west to halt its arms shipments to the Israelis and Arabs, guarantee the existing frontiers against aggression by either side until a peace treaty can be signed, and back up the guarantee by placing international patrols in Palestine. This should be done through the United Nations if possible: and if that is not possible, it should be done by any combination of nations willing to take part.
The amendment has been put before the house as something which we are entitled to ask because of the unusual circumstances, because of the ineptitude which we have seen and which has shocked us, and because there is no sign that I can discern that the government is really going to change its ways.
I ask myself what reasons there are against the acceptance of this simple suggestion, namely reference to a committee to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure. There are two reasons which occur to me. The first is that there may be something more to be discovered, that there may be things which the government knows or suspects or fears. I do not want to think that at all; but if the matter is left as it is, I suggest that that consideration, that suspicion, that fear will remain. I think it will.
Surely the government does not suspect that in the plane which took the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) down to Rio there are any concealed machine guns, or that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), whose recovery we all hope for most sincerely, took a few rifle barrels down with him. Surely there is no fear of that kind. But that is one of the reasons which will be assigned if our suggestion is not followed. People will certainly ask, are there any skeletons in the cupboard? Of course when you find so many skeletons in one cupboard, you certainly may become suspicious of the others.
The other reason would be the one we know so well, namely that for the government to face the thought that parliament be allowed to take a part or to do anything is something they cannot do. It is just a thought which they cannot face. Here in July last there was an interlude in which certain things happened, and I think the Canadian people were interested. One might have thought that certain views might have been changed but I find little sign of that result.

Here is what I find about the Minister of Trade and Commerce. His feeling about what took place then was that we were just tiresome. If my memory serves me aright, at that time he said, as he listened to the speeches from this side of the house, that they seemed to him to come from some strange land. I hope I do not do injustice to his wording. I think I express what was in his mind. Then on January 16 last he said this, as reported at page 125 of Hansard:
What was the purpose of keeping us here during the month of July? It was to prevent the government from getting authority on a reasonably long-term basis to deal with the materials in short supply and to allocate those materials to the best advantage of the Canadian economy.
When I think of all the labour we devoted to the matter and all the instruction we gave to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am disappointed that we made no greater impression than that; but there it is, and you must face the facts.
I think we must face the fact that the government may take the attitude which they so often have taken in the past, namely that to allow parliament to play any part in this matter is something that is just not done by well-regulated governments who have been in power for 20 years and who feel their oats.
The only thing I can do is suggest to the government that, just as happened last summer with respect to another matter, this matter is beginning to reach the public mind. I think there may be an increasing appreciation of the situation if it goes on, and I suggest to the government that as it was parliament-through the opposition-that brought this matter to light, and as it is parliament that is bringing it still further to light and is impressing it on the minds of the people of Canada, the people of Canada may well be surprised if the government takes the attitude that parliament may have nothing to do with this matter and says: We have blundered; we have been inept; we have been forgetful; we have been careless; we have been badly organized; nevertheless we are still the government and we are not going to allow parliament to have anything whatever to do with this matter.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this amendment I have in mind the remarks that have been made in this house today. I have no intention of describing incidents which have taken place in the past couple of weeks or even in the past couple of days. It seems to me that they are already on the record and there they will stand.
I might say that I approach this amendment with some diffidence because, as must
Shipment of Arms Abroad be apparent to all members of this house,
I certainly do not belong in the field of military experts. At a display of arms and munitions I confess to being somewhat awed. But I make no apology for that fact, because I believe that any ordinary citizen should be awed by the tremendous forces for human destruction which are today in the hands of men. I therefore speak today, Mr. Speaker, as an ordinary citizen concerned for the future of this nation and also for the sons and the young husbands and fathers who will inevitably be sent to defend us in the event that we should at any time find ourselves flung into war.
I do not want anyone to think for a moment that I am a pacifist; I am not. I am not an isolationist; I am far from it. Under NATO we are committed to co-operation with and support of our friends. As members of the British commonwealth of nations we are also committed to support the welfare of all the other members of the commonwealth. This is our family, and what involves them also involves us. However, when it comes to other countries I believe strongly that the sale of arms to small countries is not a deterrent to war. No, Mr. Speaker; I think the deterrent is in the knowledge that the great powers which are banded together in the United Nations will say no; and that not only will they say no but that they will back up what they say with action. Under the United Nations we are committed to trying to stop wars, not to fomenting them. I should like to read a couple of quotations from the preamble and the purposes of the United Nations as set out in the United Nations charter. At the beginning of the preamble we have these words:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge oi war, which twice in our lifetime has broughi untold sorrow to mankind, . . .
Those are the very first words. I am one of those in this house old enough to have lived through two world wars. I know there are many hon. members in this house whc have not lived through two. There are alsc a great many who fought in two, and some who fought in the last one. To them I air sure a different picture must be presentee than that which is presented to me as ar individual who, because of my sex, was no' permitted to fight in either war as a direc combatant. However, there was no one whc stayed at home in those wars who did no do his or her part in some capacity or other So these words in this charter, Mr. Speaker touch our hearts as well as our intelligence
924	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad In the preamble it goes on to say, after citing the other determinations:
And for these ends,
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, . . .
Yet we say to other countries, "Here are the weapons but do not use them"; or we say, "Here are the weapons and we will not look while you use them." Nothing here set out lends support to a policy of supplying arms, and certainly not to supplying arms to both sides in a controversy.
The purposes of the United Nations are outlined in the very first paragraph, which reads as follows:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach pf the peace.
As I said previously, Mr. Speaker, the greatest deterrent to war is the knowledge :hat the great powers will say no and will pack it up with action. Yesterday in this louse we had as a guest one of the greatest statesmen in the world, the Prime Minister )f the United Kingdom. Included in his renarks were some very pertinent comments. !e spoke about the last war, and how even vhen we were sure victory had been won here were still things that had to be accomplished. He made this statement:
He would still be a rash man or an ill-informed ine who would attempt a confident prophecy for nankind today.
I think that is what bothers all of us, the mcertainty. Where are we heading? What s in front of us? When even several mem->ers of the cabinet of one of the great nations if the world cannot agree as to what has aken place under their own jurisdiction, no vender the people of that nation feel some mcertainty as to their future.
After listing the various good points, as he ailed them, Sir Anthony had this to say bout the bad points or, as he called them, dose on the debit side. He said:
First, the increasing hazards which some are repared to take.
I hope we will digest those remarks of his, ecause in all the excitement of yesterday think possibly some of us were more con-erned with giving welcome to a welcome 

guest than we were with digesting his words. He listed the following:
First, the increasing hazards which some are prepared to take. Second, the dangers of aggression by countries which believe they can ignore the deterrent. Third, the continued existence of local disputes, whose consequences could engulf the world.
There were others, Mr. Speaker, but those three I should like to place on the record. It seems to me that the final one is the most dangerous of those three. It is dangerous because it could be built up on the first two. I do not believe for a moment that the people of this country get terribly excited about what happens a few thousand miles away if they think it is going to stay right there. But there is no power on earth that can draw a little line around a conflagration once it has started. There is no power that can say that when one tree in a forest catches fire the whole forest will not go; and that is what we are up against. How do we know that if a conflagration breaks out in some remote part of this earth today we will not be caught up in it before it is finished? We do not know. We are sitting on a keg of dynamite while the ministers of the crown throw lighted matches in a fine spirit of abandon.
If trouble breaks out somewhere, Canadian troops will inevitably be involved. If we are drawn into trouble, then this whole country will say to us, why did you not do something about this in the initial stages? Why did you not foresee that trouble would engulf us? Did you not live through two wars? Did you not see a minor incident in a remote country build itself into a war which engulfed all the peoples on this earth? Every member in this house, Mr. Speaker, represents thousands of citizens, and it is the duty of every member in this house to know what course we as a nation are going to follow. It is for that reason we think the matter of supplying arms and munitions should go to a committee where it could be properly assessed, a committee of experts on external affairs.
Yesterday in this house a statement was made by the Prime Minister with reference to the lifting of the embargo on the export of arms and munitions. Last evening, listening to the news on the radio, I cannot say I was surprised but I was interested to note that without exception the attitude taken by the newscasters was that this opened the gate again for a resumption of the activities which had been denounced in this house last week. Here we go all over again; more weapons to both sides.
We are bound on subjects of this sort, to obtain the considered opinion of a standing

committee of this house charged with the responsibility of delving into the pros and cons of each individual case as it comes up. I am agreed that each case must rest on its own merits, but the overall policy must be sound. Let us have no more of this trafficking in weapons; let us have no more of these invitations to war.
I said a few minutes ago that I was no pacifist and I am no isolationist. It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that I have always supported the defence preparedness of this nation and will continue to do so. I am satisfied to leave it to those who are experts in the field to determine what is adequate. I do not know whether or not the defences which we have today for Canada are adequate, and I should be talking nonsense if I attempted to establish myself as being knowledgeable on that subject.
However, it is my firm belief that we do not dare relax our preparations; we do not dare to let up in our efforts. It is also my belief that in the event we are drawn into war every able-bodied man and woman in this country must be available for the duties they are required to do, whether it be in the front lines or at home; and it is becoming increasingly apparent that these two posts of duty may very well be synonymous the next time a war occurs.
Therefore we must exercise care, Mr. Speaker. So we feel that these decisions must not be made in several departments of government without reference to other departments of government. We believe that anything as important as the export of arms and munitions must go to a place which will act as a clearing house for the various departments of government.
As I said, I believe we must be prepared, and I believe we cannot relax; but I object most vigorously to a slap-happy policy which makes of our people pawns in a game where the stakes are the lives of our young men.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as my leader the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) indicated last evening, we shall support the amendment that is now before the house if a vote on that amendment should become necessary. It does seem to me that the government might even yet give favourable consideration to the idea of accepting this proposition without making it a matter of want of confidence. At the same time I should like to commend my friend and neighbour the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for bringing this matter before the house in the terms in which his amendment has been drawn.
Shipment of Arms Abroad
I think we are all aware of the origins of the present discussion, and we are aware of the origins of this desire; nevertheless what is sought now is something totally different from what was under debate last week.
What is now sought is that permission be given to the standing committee on external affairs to review the whole question of the procedures that are employed in the issuing of export permits for munitions and materials of war. It is also suggested that that committee might be given the power to recommend a code which the government might in turn consider. I think it is obvious to all of us as the result of things that have happened in the house in the last two or three weeks that such a review is highly desirable, and I wish to commend our friends to the right, the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party, on the excellent speeches they have made in connection with this matter.
I intend, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks in support of this amendment should be very brief. It is not my purpose to repeat the arguments that have been advanced by hon. members to my right or the arguments given last night by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. However, I do think emphasis might also be laid on the fact that not only is there a certain amount of uncertainty and bungling on the part of the government with respect to this matter which calls for a review, but it should also be remembered that there are certain private interests in the country which seem to have no objection to trafficking in the weapons and the materials of war.
We have been reminded during the discussions on this matter that there are two main categories of military equipment. There is that equipment which is in the possession of the services or the Department of National Defence, and there is also any equipment which commercial interests may have for sale to other countries. In addition to our concern as to the procedures with respect to war materials owned by the government or in the possession of the services, I think we should also be concerned as to the procedures by means of which permits are granted to private firms to export war materials of any kind to other nations.
In that connection I would remind hon. members that the morality of some corporations in a matter of this kind is not of the highest order, as was called to our attention back in 1943 in the case of Falconbridge Nickel Mines, Limited. Other hon. members who were here with some of us at that time may recall that on May 11, 1943, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar drew to the



S26 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Shipment of Arms Abroad attention of the house a few rather shocking sentences in the remarks of the president of Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited, which he made at the annual general meeting of the shareholders of that company which had been held on Wednesday, April 21, 1943-
Walter Edward Harris: And which everyone condemned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance is getting a bit ahead of me. He is perfectly right, it was condemned by everyone from the prime minister of the day down. But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that we should not forget that instances of this kind indicate the morality of some of these people.
Despite the interjection of the Minister of Finance I think hon. members should recall what it was the president of this company said to the shareholders of the company on that occasion. He had been discussing the position of the company's Norway refinery which was then in German hands. So far as the balance sheet of the company was concerned he said they might as well forget it for the time being, but he went on to say this:
Incidentally, you will be glad to learn-as I was-that through indirect channels it is reported that your Norway refinery is safe so far and is being maintained. It is in operation by your Norwegian staff, under German control, on the same Norwegian nickel-copper ore-production that we formerly handled on toll basis.
As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, once that statement was drawn to the attention of parliament by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar it was indeed strongly condemned by Mr. King and by others, for we all agreed that profits were hardly something to be glad about if it meant they were accumulated at the expense of material being used against our own troops overseas.
I should also like to remind hon. members of the statement which was made on September 12, 1939, by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, when there was a discussion about a certain limitation on profits. This is what the minister said, as recorded on page 179 of Hansard of September 12, 1939:
I can say to my hon. friend that from that day to this the defence purchasing board has done its very best to place contracts on that basis-
The basis referred to was the 5 per cent profit limitation.
-and has used every pressure that could be brought to bear in the form of patriotism and so on, but to date it has not succeeded in placing a single contract on that basis.
I know that statement has been argued backward and forward a good many times since, but there it was, an honest revelation by the minister of the experience which he


had had with certain profit-seeking interests in this country. I mention these two things, the Falconbridge statement in 1943 and the statement by the minister of munitions and supply, as he was then, in 1939, to indicate that the sinners in this matter of trafficking in weapons are not limited to ministers on the front benches opposite, but are also to be found among the ranks of the producers of war equipment.
Because there are these other interests, interests that think only of profit, interests glad to get orders anywhere in the world, I submit that for that reason, as well as because of the bungling we have seen on the part of the government since we came here for this session, it is time that the whole question of the procedures employed in the issuing of permits for the export of arms and ammunition should be reviewed by a committee of this house. Therefore we are glad to support the amendment which is now before us.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) indicated last night, we welcome this amendment. We feel that it is good and timely, because events of the last few weeks have indicated that there are severe weaknesses in the cabinet, that it is shot through with indecision and lack of co-operation. We certainly hope that the cabinet are not as loosely knit in all their other decisions as they have been in regard to shipments of arms to various parts of the world. There does not appear to be any co-ordination among departments, and one minister does not seem to know exactly what is going on in other departments even though the actions may be closely related.
As has been pointed out, not only has there been a lack of co-operation among various departments in this regard; the Prime Minister seemed to be completely at' sea as to what was going on. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Macleod said last night, that the opposition should not have to step into the breach and plug the holes caused by administrative blunders. I agree also with him when he says that when the government ceases to be able to govern, it is time to throw it out.
But we must stop to think and realize that we will not have an election coming up very soon. The government does have to run the country until an election is called. Therefore we will have to help to support them, we will have to put our arms around them and guide their faltering steps, until they can be replaced by an aroused Canadian people through an election.

I think we are somewhat similar to a sportsman out in the woods who finds that his boat has sprung a leak. He would like to buy another one, but until such time as he can get to a large centre he must simply plug up the hole and keep going. That is the position in which we find ourselves. It is the duty of all hon. members, including those of the opposition, to try to keep the government afloat and save the country from absolute ruin until such time as a competent government can be elected.
I was amazed at the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) interjecting in that regard, because he should remember how in 1952 and 1953 the Liberal government in British Columbia had taken the same attitude. They were thrown out hard and thrown out fast. As a matter of fact they were defeated so decisively and their morale was lowered to such an extent that they will not run candidates' in by-elections any more.
The proposal to send this matter to the committee on external affairs is I think good, and it should bring about a system of coordinated action as far as the government is concerned with regard to the shipment of arms. Then we in the opposition, as well as all hon. members, will be able to obtain some sort of coherent information when we ask questions in the house.
Although we agree with the amendment, I do not think 1 can agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment which provokes it. Several hon. members of the official opposition would seem to favour some degree of isolationism. As much as I dislike the thought of war-I do not want to go back again, and I do not want to see my children go to war-I cannot agree that our refusal to export arms is going to rectify the situation.
I do agree that there should be a great deal of thought and consideration before arms shipments are made to any part of the world, particularly to countries which are not our NATO allies. To be quite frank, I do not think the government has given proper consideration to the shipment of arms to countries throughout the world, but if we tie our hands so that we cannot make any arms shipments then we place ourselves in the position where we cannot ship arms to a country endangered by aggression.
We must remember that the iron curtain countries are shipping arms all over the world. They are gaining the favour of those countries by arms shipments, and if we refuse to ship arms we will only alienate the affections of a good part of the people of those countries. We simply cannot afford to do that. It would not be proper to permit the Soviet union to make arms shipments to certain
Shipment of Arms Abroad areas without making at least some attempt to maintain the status quo.
There is one more point in this regard I should like to deal with, one which I think is most important. If we tie ourselves down so we canot make arms shipments we may be laying a good part of the world open to communist aggression.
Speaking last evening the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) seemed to be highly indignant that other hon. members were not taking part in the debate. He seemed to indicate that they were the only ones willing to speak. I would remind the hon. member that they were in a position to go ahead and speak because they were in a position to be prepared. We in the other groups in the house had no idea of what was coming up, and we could not possibly be prepared. They had a veil of secrecy over the whole thing, the same veil of secrecy they seem to abhor in the Liberal government.


Mr. Martin:: You mean the Tories had the veil of secrecy?


Ray Thomas: That is right. They had as much secrecy about that motion as they seem to deplore in the Liberal government. I would certainly hope that air of secrecy would not be the attitude taken if we ever had a Tory government in Ottawa. I mention that only briefly because I do not think there is any possibility of that, so I shall not say any more about it.
As I said before, I can support the amendment because it gives us a chance to brace the weakening foundations of this government to the point where it may be able to stand upon its own feet until another election is called. However, I cannot support the sentiment attached to it, which appears to be isolation, as has been pointed out by the various speakers of the Tory party.


Mr. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I think the last statement of the previous speaker is undoubtedly off the beam. Certainly I do not think any member of the Conservative party is a pacifist or isolationist to any degree whatsoever. I have risen to speak on this motion because I feel the subject matter is of very great importance. There is a definite moral principle attached to it. Also I believe it is one of the most important subjects we have discussed since I came here in the fall of 1953. I would just like to read the motion:
That, in the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, ammunition, and military equipment, should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.
928	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad
That is simple enough. It speaks for itself. It simply means that we are suggesting that this matter be discussed by the committee on external affairs and that it be given power to study and examine it from all angles and, having examined and studied the matter, it then brings a report back to the House of Commons.
To me there are two main questions involved. First, if we are going to traffic in arms, should we not know exactly what is going on and also exactly where it might lead? Second, it seems to me there is a question as to whether we should be in this deplorable business at all.
I do not propose to argue the factual or technical aspects of the debate. That has been done more capably than I can do it, by other members of my party much more equipped to talk on the subject in a detailed way than I am and with a world of experience. However, I cannot conceive of a more confused approach than has been taken by this government over the past weeks. What has been the attitude by this government in the past? They have given lip service to a role as peacemakers and go-betweens for quarrelling governments.
What do we find? The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a trip to Europe on a fact-finding basis, presumably a goodwill tour. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been acting like a carpet-bag pedlar of munitions, willing to sell to practically any nation in the world. The Prime Minister says it is a competitive business. Is this not what some of the huge armament manufacturers have done in past years? Undoubtedly they have also in the past been responsible for starting wars; perhaps small conflagrations, but at the same time they have fomented strife simply to further assist in selling arms.
I wonder how many Canadians actually know what has been going on. I doubt if very many do. Quite frankly I know I had not realized, until this debate commenced, just what has been happening. As the hon. member for Hamilton West said a few moments ago, and I am repeating those words,
I am no pacifist, I am no isolationist; I am a Canadian first, last and always, but I certainly would like to know what is going on and whither it all may lead. The present policy of the government might well be thought to be gambling in lives-of the people of some other nation, possibly, but could it not eventually lead to Canada?
We are told that what is sold is scrap or so-called obsolete weapons. Why are we selling scrap? I am asking that question. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has remarked in this house that there is a shortage


of practically everything except wheat. Is there a shortage of steel? Why should we not keep this scrap in Canada? It could well be used here. Just how obsolete are the so-called obsolete weapons? In my estimation they are not obsolete to the people who are receiving them. Weapons can become obsolete only when they can be replaced with something better.
I feel the government's attitude must fall into one of three categories: first, acquiescence in the present hopeless position; second, shame at their mishandling of the whole business; third, outright alarm that at long last they have been found completely negligent.
I would like to know how this whole issue sits on the conscience of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who have for so long posed as champions of peace. Has not this expose of government traffic in arms made a mockery, for instance, of our role at the United Nations? The United Nations is dedicated to peace. We have had disarmament conferences at the United Nations to talk peace. In my estimation we have been doing a great deal to foment trouble in various parts of the world.
Furthermore, Canada entered the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a purely defensive alliance. Time and again, at home and abroad, government spokesmen have reiterated a Canadian policy of non-aggression. Now we find these are merely lofty sentiments. Apparently these sentiments are not to be allowed to interfere with what might be termed the cold practicality of turning what the government considers to be an honest dollar and which might well turn out to be blood money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I am going to interrupt the hon. member for a moment and tell him quite frankly that he is causing me some embarrassment. I have no desire to interfere with the course of a debate which I know has been allowed to become fairly broad and which I take it should, in the opinion of the house, be allowed to become fairly broad, but I think the hon. member's remarks have brought me to the position where I must point out to him that the meat of the motion we are now discussing is that the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. Of course I have left out a lot of the words of the amendment.
In order to justify our right to debate that particular motion at this time it was pointed out at some length earlier this afternoon that what we are discussing is not-and I am using my own words-the morals or ethics or

lack of them in the exporting of arms but the question whether or not the procedures adopted by the government should be referred to a committee for investigation and recommendation. I am going to ask the hon. member and those who will be following him to try to direct their remarks largely to that question because, as was pointed out from this rostrum earlier today, otherwise we are going to have, if not in resolution at least in debate, a complete repetition of what we had last week. I feel quite sure the hon. member for Perth and others realize the difficulty in which that puts the Chair and will do their best to assist us.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not wish to put you in any difficulty. That would be the farthest thing from my mind. However, I feel quite strongly about this matter, and my reason for approaching it in this way is to try to show that there are reasons of humanity across the whole world why it should be referred to the committee on external affairs.
As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief and I am not going to deal with the technical or factual side of the question as I consider others to be more capable of doing so than myself. But I should simply like to say that there is either a right side or a wrong side. If we are on the right side it must be uncompromisingly so. If we are wrong, then I think our policy should be changed. How can we find out except by referring the matter to the committee on external affairs? If we do not do this, it seems to me it will be a downright shame for Canada.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself rather briefly to the amendment before the house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How about wheat?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You will hear plenty about wheat. The amendment calls for referring this matter to the external affairs committee for the purpose of establishing a procedure. Two things that are rather noticeable have been missing from the debate up to this point. One is the fact that no member of the government nor, as far as I am aware, any member of the party supporting the government, has had anything whatever to say on the amendment.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We decided the question last week.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That makes it rather difficult to know just what the intention of the government is with respect to the amendment, whether they intend to sit out the R7509-59
Shipment of Arms Abroad debate, assume that the amendment is a straight matter of want of confidence and treat it as such or whether they would prefer on this occasion to treat it on its merits.
The leader of this group has placed on the record the attitude of our party. We are supporting the amendment in the hope that it will bring about a method by which members of the house, and in that way the public, can become better informed as to what is being done and how shipments of arms abroad are made. That is the reason why it would be very valuable if some member of the government were to take part in the debate and set qut the attitude of the government. If they feel the amendment is not justified, then there has certainly been plenty of time in which they could have so informed the house and stated their reasons therefor. The silence of the government indicates that either they are supremely disinterested in the question as such or they have no defence whatever to offer, and I hope it will soon become clear which one of these reasons prevails.
In my opinion the other thing that is lacking so far is that while the amendment calls for referring the question to a committee for the purpose of setting up a code of procedure, so far as I am aware not one member of the official opposition has yet stated just what procedure or method they would like to adopt. It is easy enough to call for a code of procedure, but I think the house and the country deserve a more explicit statement of what is in the minds of those who have moved the amendment.


Mr. Marlin:: It is quite clear they have nothing in mind.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That of course puts them right in line with government policy. I have a proposal to make which I hope will commend itself to the members of the Progressive Conservative group, my friends to the left and perhaps even to the members of the government. If we are going to exercise public control over the export of arms, and it is understood that we are now referring to arms shipments to other than NATO or commonwealth countries, then I think the best way to do it would be to set up a crown company which would be charged with the responsibility of being the clearing house for this type of export. The crown company should be responsible to parliament, report to parliament through a minister, and report to a committee. Unless something of that nature is set up then I am afraid we would not be very far ahead if the government, for example, were to say that they were quite prepared to let the members of the external
930	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad affairs committee ask questions about the issuing of export permits and so on but of course they would guarantee no answers. That type of thing has happened before.
As a matter of fact it was the subject of a motion on the part of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) last year when he complained bitterly about some of the things that went on in the estimates committee where ministers of the government either were members of the committee or took the attitude that their officials could answer only those questions which the minister concerned permitted them to answer. Therefore unless some clearly established machinery is set up through which all these procedures can be channelled in a responsible manner, and unless such an organization can be made responsible to parliament as a whole, I doubt very much if we will be very much farther ahead than we are at the present time. There are good reasons why there should be a public clearing house such as a crown company for the purpose of keeping strict public control over arms shipments outside of the NATO and commonwealth countries.
Reference has been made in this debate- mostly by interjection-from the other side to the fact that the amounts, the volume or the value of the arms shipments made to date in recent years has not been large. In relation to our war expenditures or our defence expenditures, that statement certainly is true. The amount of $20,000 or $1,500 or $30,000 or half a million dollars in relation to the total defence expenditures or the war expenditures during the war is a small amount of money. But the principle that is involved, as I understand the present procedure, is this. It is not too easy to understand, I may say, because we get a great variety of explanations, and then explanations of explanations, when ministers are questioned. But as I understand the matter up to this point the procedure is this. Again may I say that I would appreciate it if a member of the government were to enter this debate and make a clear-cut explanation of what actually is being done. But as I understand it, what is being done now is that a private firm may come to the government, and not necessarily to the government as such but to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or to some official of that department, because we know that responsibility is delegated down the line. It might be the fifth assistant of the third deputy who receives the application for a permit for the export of certain arms to a certain country by that private firm. We have not yet been told just what is done or what investigation is made at that point as 

to the propriety of the export of those arms; as to the effects it may have on our international policy; or as to the effects it may have on the possibility of an arms race among various countries in a certain part of the world.
We do not know-we are not told and we are not able to find out; in fact we are as much as told that it is not any of our business-what procedure is followed to investigate and to determine whether such a permit should be issued. We know that certain permits are issued. We are not told-and we cannot find out at the present time-whether these firms that apply for these permits for the export of arms have any international connections in their business. We know that in the past it has been the case. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) recalled to the house, even during the time when Canada was at war we know that certain of these firms had international connections which, even in time of war, found themselves on the other side of the fence doing business. But even in peace time do we know whether some of these firms have international business connections, whether they have particular private interests to protect which are not combined with the public interest of Canada or with the national interests of Canada or of the commonwealth. All these things have a bearing on what is done.
For example, we do not want private firms to be profiteering at the expense of human life and property, whether it be in Canada or elsewhere; nor do we want international business connections to become privateers in the business of arms regardless of what effect it may have upon Canada or upon Canada's friends and international relations. These are things that need to be found out and I can conceive of no better way at the moment. If someone has a better suggestion I should like to hear it. Certainly, unless I have not heard correctly, I have not heard a definite proposal made by any member of the Progressive Conservative group as to what they have to recommend with respect to a clearing house procedure if this matter was referred to a committee and if the committee gave this matter consideration.
My proposal is that a crown company should be set up, that that company should be responsible to parliament as a whole, and that it should be the agency, under the control of parliament, which should determine in which cases export permits may be issued if it is in the best interests of this country that this should be done; and there conceivably are cases where it may be in the interests of this country that export permits should be issued. But that is a matter that should

be considered on the basis of public interest and of the national interest of this country and not in the interests of any private group who are out to profiteer or to a privateer in an arms race.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who preceded me has just drawn attention to the fact that we have not yet had any statement of the government's position in this matter. Quite apart from the question that fact raises as to whether the government-including the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin)- has anything in mind, it might be regarded as somewhat of an insult to the house that a serious suggestion put forward in a field which is of such grave concern to the people of Canada should receive from the government no statement as to their position.
It is not usual that hon. gentlemen opposite are so coy. It is not usual that they hide their light under a bushel. In the past we have had experience of their readiness to parade their virtues-


Donald Methuen Fleming: If any.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and to extol the merits of
their course and of their decisions, with the result that when this unexpected silence, this coyness, this shyness,-


An hon. Member:: This unwonted modesty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; when this unwonted
modesty descends upon them we must ask ourselves whether it does not indicate that in fact they are rather ashamed of their policy. Indeed, they might well be ashamed, not only of their policy but of the procedure under which the decisions with respect to the export of arms are arrived at. Or perhaps there is another reason. At least, Mr. Speaker, this policy of silence, this self-denying ordinance under which they are now conducting themselves, has from their point of view the virtue that in silence lies safety, namely safety from contradiction. At least we are not hearing conflicting and contradictory statements from the ministers. We are now hearing no statements at all. I wonder whether a ministerial order has been issued. I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce has held another cabinet meeting and issued an order-having the effect of an order in council-that there shall be no more statements from his colleagues on this matter. That may be the case. It is a probable explanation. In that case I think we should ask the minister to let us know what is the policy of the government and whether or not that policy was arrived at with or without consultation with his colleagues.
67509-59J
Shipment of Arms Abroad
However that may be, Mr. Speaker, I suggest in all seriousness that this is a proposal which demands from the government a statement as to their position. We are entitled to know whether they are satisfied with the procedure; whether the fiasco which has been unrolled and developed before our eyes as we have seen the complete lack of coordination with which this matter is dealt with, is to be repeated; whether the procedures within the cabinet and between ministers and departments, which have resulted in this fiasco of contradiction and uncertainty, is to be prolonged; or whether there is to be some change in that procedure. Without some such statement, Mr. Speaker, we shall be forced to conclude that in this matter, as in most others, the government regards itself as being above and beyond criticism and as responsible to no one, not even to parliament.
Under the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), we are discussing a suggestion that the procedures governing the issuance of permits for the export of munitions of war should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. The motion relates primarily to the procedures under which this matter is handled. But I think it might be said that there is in addition a need for a review of policy on this matter in the light of certain developments which have taken place within the last 48 hours.
I refer particularly to the statement issued by the United States government when they turned down an application for the export of $50 million worth of munitions to Israel. This fact is significant in itself, but I suggest that even more significant is the statement made on behalf of the United States administration that in their view the only way to prevent an outbreak of hostilities in areas such as that, and other sensitive areas, was not to export arms to either or both sides, but by a joint declaration, backed up by the necessary preparation, for the major powers to make it quite clear they will not permit the resort to force to settle this agreement.
The other factor which indicates there is an urgent need for a review of policy in this field is a statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as recorded on page 880 of Hansard, when he answered a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
My answer-
Referring to a previous answer.
-was that the embargo had not been lifted and that the matter was then under consideration. It has been considered, and the embargo is now to be lifted at once.
In the light of the oft-repeated statement made by this government, and with which
932	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad I think most if not all hon. members of the house fully agree, as to the essential importance of maintaining unity of purpose of policy between Canada and the United States, it seems to me that we are faced with an extraordinary situation, namely that the Prime Minister has stated on behalf of the government of Canada a policy which is at direct variance with, if not indeed in :ontradiction to, that of the United States government.


Mr. Cannon:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kamloops is not speaking to the motion which is before the house. He is talking about a matter of policy which was decided by this house some time ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would point out to the hon. gentleman and to you, Mr. Speaker, that he had perhaps better consult his calendar because the statement of policy made by the United States government was made after the earlier debate had been concluded and the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday was certainly made after the conclusion of the earlier debate.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I am not talking about a statement that was made-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am talking about it; that is the whole point.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -I am saying that the hon. member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I think the first point of order we will decide is that there cannot be two members occupying the floor at the one time. As I understand it, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) wants to refer to a point of order.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: If you wish to restate my point of order, Mr. Speaker,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was wrong the first time and it will be wrong again.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: -it is the very point that you brought up yourself when one of the previous speakers had the floor. The amendment that is now before the house deals with a matter of procedure, and I have been listening carefully to the hon. member so I am certain he is talking about a matter of government policy which was decided some time ago by this house and which should not be discussed again at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Does the hon. member wish to reply to the point of order?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In my view it is not a point of order, and does not call for any reply. I was pointing out that events of the last few days have put a new light on this matter by virtue of which the government should, in addition to reviewing procedures by which the export of arms is dealt with, take a fresh look at its own position with respect to exports to sensitive areas generally.
The situation now is that the procedure presently in force can result in arms being shipped to both sides. We have that on the clear statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We must presume they will be shipped to both sides of a dispute in a sensitive area. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there can be no hon. member in this house who views with equanimity the continuation of a procedure which will permit that course of conduct. It is, I am confident, a procedure which is abhorrent to the people of Canada and contrary not only to the best interests of our country but to the preservation of peace.
However, we are in the position here that at the present time the only effective action this house can take is to call for a review of that procedure. Here, I might refer to what was said a moment ago by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny). We would hope the committee on external affairs would, when it has all the facts before it, and we do not have the facts before us at the present time, recommend a procedure by virtue of which the situation about which we are now complaining could not be continued. It is for that reason we have refrained from suggesting any specific procedure in our motion. Any suggestion that might be made at the present time would be extremely apt to be inapplicable because it would not be made in the full knowledge of the facts which are relevant and necessary before a comprehensive suggestion might be made. In addition, as I am sure the hon. member himself is aware, it is a well-established principle that when you appoint a committee to investigate and recommend, you do not seek to circumscribe it in advance by saying what it should recommend.
Turning then to the consideration by a committee of the procedures, it might be asked by some: why is this review necessary? There is one over-all paramount fact which emerges from this situation, and which makes it abundantly clear, even if there were no others, that such a review is urgently necessary, and that is that notwithstanding the bungling contradiction that we have seen unrolled before us with respect to the handling of this situation, we have not been able to push aside fully the cloak of secrecy with

which the government veils its procedure. There is still a disturbing determination on the part of the government to refuse to the house and to the country full knowledge of how it deals with these matters, and the policy and procedures on which it bases its decisions. I refer, sir, to the interchange which is reported on page 788 of Hansard when we were seeking to obtain information about just how this export permit had been issued and what was covered in it.
It is not necessary for me to rehearse again all the extraordinary convolutions followed by the government and the various ministers, as a result of which we emerge with an order in council that had been, I think the word is denigrated into a ministerial order, and then indeed it was not even a ministerial order. There was apparently no formal order. It was merely minutes, nebulous minutes, signed we were told by some ministers and circulated by them one to the other. And so we asked to get the full information as to what the situation was and we asked for the production to the house of the documents which showed what decision had been made and upon what basis that decision had been reached. We were told by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that we could not have those papers, they were secret. We were told that the whole procedure back of this thing is to be kept secret. Then we asked for the production of the export permits. There was at least that one document the existence of which could not be denied. When we asked for its production the Prime Minister said, as recorded at page 788 of Hansard:
All export permits are treated as confidential documents for commercial reasons. They contain information with respect to commodities, prices of commodities, the sources of supply, the firm dealing in those commodities, and for that reason these documents have always been treated as being confidential for the proper protection of those who are engaged in competitive business.
Therefore, for the protection of those who are engaged in competitive business, this house is to be denied information as to how decisions regarding the export of munitions of war are arrived at on the ground that the export of munitions or other commodities which will enable a country to wage an aggressive war is competitive business.


An hon. Member:: Oh no.


Mr. Dickey:: You know perfectly well that is not right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is absolute nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Secretary of State for External Affairs says absolute nonsense. Well, here we have another cabinet minister describing the statement of the Prime Minister as nonsense.
Shipment of Arms Abroad


Lester Bowles Pearson: Your comment is nonsense.


John Horace Dickey: Very funny.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have convinced me of what remains of the principle of cabinet solidarity.


William Earl Rowe: There is none left now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The information regarding export permits covering the export of military aircraft was denied us on the basis that all these documents were secret and were kept that way for the proper protection of those engaged in competitive business. And yesterday, when we asked by a formal motion for the production of these papers, production of them was denied on the same basis; not that there was any military security involved from Canada's point of view, but that the principle of secrecy enunciated by the Prime Minister as reported at page 788 of Hansard must be maintained.
I would ask the government to explain what moral standard we have arrived at when shipments of materiel from Canada by commercial enterprises which will increase the military potential of countries in sensitive areas is described as competitive business.
Are we in this country encouraging, in fact permitting, either the government or private agencies to ship munitions of war as a competitive business? Have we so far forsaken the standards on the basis of which we previously recorded this question as to say it is purely a commercial consideration? Is this House of Commons to be denied information as to what is being shipped because that would reveal commercial secrets? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is an atrocious basis on which either to conduct this business or to deny this house information as to the way in which this business is being conducted. We have purveyors of instruments of war and we are not to know what they are doing because it might reveal their commercial secrets. One cannot but remember that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been praised in the past as one who would devote every effort to the preservation of peace. I suggest that in this situation which has been unfolded to us the hitherto unsullied reputation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs has suffered a damaging blow.
"Competitive business"-that is a new description for the shipment of arms sent from Canada to sensitive areas. However, that is the basis upon which we are denied information. That is the basis upon which secrecy is maintained. We are left, therefore, with nothing more to rely upon as the basis of our knowledge of the situation than

Shipment of Arms Abroad ministerial statements. Well the ministerial statements that have been made in this house to date in relation to this matter are not very encouraging as a basis upon which to think that we can actually understand what is the policy and the procedure.
I have already referred, as other hon. members have done, to the example of the order in council which was not an order in council but which was a ministerial order but which was not a ministerial order but which was merely an exchange of minutes. These ministerial statements upon which we are compelled to rely for our information because we are told we cannot get the documents prove conclusively that the ministerial statements coming from these ministers are so unreliable that they cannot be treated with any seriousness. These are statements upon matters on which the ministers are or should be-in fact, must be-taken to be informed. These statements are made with a great degree of carelessness; carelessness as to their accuracy, carelessness as to their effect and carelessness as to their importance. Such is the carelessness with which they are given that they could not be more misleading were they deliberately intended to be misleading.
I wish to refer to a statement made on February 3 in this house by the same minister who is in charge of the whole procedure of issuing export permits. This statement is to be found at page 833 of Hansard for that date. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was questioned as to the closing down of the heavy water plant at Trail, British Columbia. He was asked what implications that held for Canada and as reported at page 833 of Hansard he said:
The government of Canada has never had any interest in the plant nor has it obtained any material from that plant.
He was then asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) whether the closing of the plant would affect the operations of our atomic energy installation at Chalk River and the minister replied:
I am surprised that the hon. member has been told that the heavy water at Chalk River came from Trail because it is not to my knowledge that that is the ease. We purchase our heavy water from the atomic energy commission of the United States and it is my understanding that it comes from quite a different source.
That is what we were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in two replies to questions. This is the minister entirely responsible for the whole field of atomic energy research and development in Canada, the minister who alone knows the facts and is in possession of all the facts and upon whose statements this house is entitled to rely.


I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to refer you to some press reports concerning statements made by this minister upon whose statements we are expected to rely, who is the only source of information we are to have with respect to the procedures now in question. I think the statement I am about to read will disagree with that statement made by him with respect to the heavy water situation, a statement made so carelessly as to its accuracy, its content and its effect, as to be as misleading as it could have been had it been deliberately calculated to meet with that object.
I shall now read from a Canadian press dispatch originating in Ottawa on May 19, 1954, as reported in the Montreal Daily Star of that date. It reads:
Scientists at the Chalk River atomic energy project say Canada may be the first country in the world to build an economical atomic power plant.
And later:
Since Canada entered the atomic energy field her experience has been with experimental reactors partially controlled or moderated with heavy water produced at the Trail, B.C., smelter plant.
Another article appeared in February, 1954.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry, as I do not like having to interrupt an hon. gentleman, but I think hon. members will surely agree with me thau motion as to whether or not the procedure to be adopted for the export of arms should be referred to a committee is not one in connection with which we should arrive at the correctness or otherwise of statements made by a minister as to the closing down of the heavy water plant at Trail. I have no hesitation in saying that it is not in order and I would ask the hon. member to come back to the amendment before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect may I say that I think you have failed to appreciate the point. I am discussing the reason why it is desirable that the question of procedures should be referred to a committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: followed the hon. gentleman very closely. He was endeavouring to prove by this incident that some statement which he received from the ministerial side of the house could not be relied on. I think he is entitled to make that statement, but I do not think he can go into the merits of such a statement. Otherwise we could spend the next 40 minutes debating the accuracy or otherwise of any statement by any minister on the government side of the house. I am going to request the hon. member to come back to the question of the export of arms and the reference of the procedures thereon to a committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I shall of course bow to your ruling, as I always do, but may I be permitted to observe that I was not attempting to establish the inaccuracy of the statement or to attack its merits; it has been proved beyond any doubt to he inaccurate. What I was trying to do was to show how inaccurate a statement which is definitely and deliberately-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -made can be, that we can no longer place any reliance upon any statement made by ministers opposite with respect to matters within their knowledge, matters of which they should have knowledge-


Murdo William Martin: I rise on a point of order.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile): The
Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. gentleman has just said that we can no longer rely or place any reliance on the observations of certain ministers of the crown. I submit to you with confidence that that is a wholly improper remark to make and that the hon. gentleman ought to be asked forthwith to withdraw what he said by way of implication and direction.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that if in the hon. member's opinion it was an improper remark it was prompted by the wholly improper conduct of ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):
Does the hon. member for Kamloops wish to say anything with regard to the point raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I should say that in any expression I have used there is nothing unparliamentary. I have stated a fact; I have supported the conclusions at which I arrived. I have stated it as a fact in language which is well within the rules of parliamentary debate. I submit to Your Honour that there is nothing to withdraw.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile): I
have been following the hon. member for Kamloops very closely. In my opinion he did make the statement to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred, but I do not think he implied at any time that there was any deliberate misinterpretation or deliberate misrepresentation by anyone on the part of the cabinet. I would be glad to have his confirmation of that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Shipment of Arms Abroad


Murdo William Martin: May I speak to this point. Referring to certain ministers the hon. member said that we could not place any reliance on what they said. I submit with confidence that that is saying that the minister in question is not capable of giving expression to something that can be characterized as truthful. I submit to you with great certainty that that is an improper remark for any hon. member to make about another hon. member of this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the Leader of the Opposition has stated already, my observation was prompted by the wholly improper and irresponsible attitude of ministers opposite when they make statements upon which this house must rely as to its knowledge of the facts with respect to which those ministers are making statements.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile): I
think before we go any further it is going to be my duty to dispose of this incident, to the dissatisfaction of both sides. If I followed correctly the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops, he was entitled to point out that there are what he termed various forms of weakness in the cabinet and that incorrect replies were being given. As I understand it, he did not accuse any cabinet minister of improper motives or of any deliberate misconstruction of facts. It is his privilege to make accusations of incompetence if he chooses and it is not within the duties of my position to decide on the correctness or otherwise of those accusations.
The hon. member for Kamloops has stated explicitly that he did not charge the cabinet with any deliberate misinformation. I think on the basis of that I am entitled to come to the conclusion that he has said nothing further than he is entitled to say as a member when referring in the heat of debate to the party sitting opposite him.
I would like to revert to the other point and request the hon. member to come back to the motion we are discussing which is, and I repeat, one to refer certain procedures to a committee of this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the subject which you have pointed out is before the house, I submit that the only way in which we will get information on this matter and a satisfactory understanding of how these procedures work, if they work, is by reference of the matter to a committee, and the logical committee is the standing committee on external affairs. In that committee we could consider the matter with the right to call witnesses and call for records and documents which are so important in enabling one to arrive at the facts of a matter.
93B

Shipment of Arms Abroad Unless such a procedure is adopted this house is going to be left to continue in its present unsatisfactory state where secrecy is maintained, where information, the accuracy of which we have no means of judging, is placed before us, and where the veil of secrecy is used by the government to deny the production of documents called for by two motions. Supported by their members present in the house, and on the basis that the information asked for was secret because it related to competitive business, the motions were defeated.
I think I have said enough to indicate that with a matter of such vital concern to the welfare of this country, to world peace and to the moral regard in which Canada is to be held by ourselves as well as the rest of the world, we cannot allow that situation to continue.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) calls for two things. First, that a committee investigate the shipment of arms which has taken place and, second, that the committee recommend a code to govern such shipments and procedures in connection with them in the future. I submit that those two proposals are eminently reasonable.
Surely parliament is entitled to know exactly what has been done in this matter up to date and what will be done in the future, particularly the policy and the procedures that will be followed from now on as far as the shipment of arms is concerned. Certainly we do not know at the moment either of these things. The whole matter has been a picture of confusion ever since the beginning of this session of parliament. We had a series of statements by ministers, each one amending or correcting what the previous statement had said. It was quite evident that the ministers directly concerned with this matter, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Defence, just did not know what happened. Apparently they did not know what policy, if any, was being followed, and, particularly, the way in which it can be carried out. Thus it is quite apparent that the cabinet as a whole was just not in the picture as far as arms shipments are concerned.
When we come to parliament and the Canadian people, nothing was known of these arms shipments. It came as a shock to me, and I think to most of us here and also, I am sure, to most Canadians, to learn that we have been shipping arms to the Middle East, the very area where there is and has been


for some months past the greatest fear of a war breaking out. It was a further surprise to all of us to find we had been shipping arms for several years past to Central and South America. I do not think that many Canadians relish at all the idea of Canada being in the arms business. I am sure all of our citizens want to be assured that, to the extent that we are in this arms business, the strictest supervision and control is exercised in the sending of arms abroad.
As a result, I am quite sure that a committee such as that proposed and a definite code coming out of that committee, to govern all arms shipments, would be generally welcomed throughout Canada.
The Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the embargo on the shipment of arms has been lifted returns the situation to the same unsatisfactory state it was in before the question was raised. I would just like to read part of the Prime Minister's statement and comment upon it. He said, as indicated on page 880 of Hansard:
. . . the embargo is now to be lifted at once. The government intends to continue the policy which has been in force of considering each application for military equipment on its merits and ensuring that if permission is granted it shall, in the future as in the past, be for military equipment of a type and quantity which could not provoke an arms race or provide an incentive to aggression.
How can the Prime Minister or any of the other ministers, or the cabinet as a whole, determine what type and what quantity of munitions is going to provoke an arms race or is going to be an incentive to aggression? I do not think it is possible. As has been pointed out previously, many conflagrations start from very small sparks. The first great war started from the murder of an Austrian archduke, and I am quite sure that when that murder took place very few people thought it would develop into a world war. Similarly it is not possible, in my opinion, for the Prime Minister or anyone else to say that a batch of arms or a group of ammunition is not going to be an incentive to aggression and is not going to provoke an arms race.
It brings up what some people seem to consider a distinction between defensive and offensive arms. Personally, I do not think there is any distinction. I have heard some people arguing that some or most of the arms we sent abroad were defensive arms and not of an offensive nature. Arms of any sort are offensive in the general sense of the term and in the sense of the term that they can be used to mount an attack, that is, the strictly military use of the term "offensive". I seems to me that, no matter what sort of arms you export, you are putting into

the hands of the people who get those arms the capability of mounting an attack, of starting an aggression. You cannot distinguish as between types of arms. In that regard, I suppose many people might consider anti-aircraft guns as purely defensive arms. However, during the last war-particularly during the last year of that war-the heavy ack-ack guns of our army fired a greater number of rounds in the ground role, and certainly not in a defensive role, than they fired at aircraft. They were extremely good medium guns when used in ground actions. Therefore you cannot class any of these weapons as purely defensive arms. They are all offensive; and they can all start trouble.
There is another facet of this matter which makes the reference of it to a committee very desirable. What I refer to is that it involves the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of the arms and ammunition which have been shipped abroad. I do not refer here to the arms shipped to other members of the commonwealth and to members of NATO. We have shipped large numbers of arms to the NATO countries as part of our commitment to that organization. Whether we should have shipped some of those arms or whether it would have been better to have kept them at home is a matter of defence policy, but those are not the arms I refer to. However, it is a very pertinent matter for this parliament to know to what extent arms shipped to countries other than the commonwealth and NATO countries have been subsidized out of public funds.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) yesterday outlined how upwards of a million dollars' worth of guns, rifles and ammunition have been shipped to Central and South America during the past eight years. The question immediately comes to mind:	Was this material
manufactured by private firms on a commercial basis, such as the commercial transactions about which we have heard, or was it government stocks which held been disposed of as surplus to requirements? If it was the latter, as I suspect very strongly it was, what did it cost the Canadian taxpayer, to begin with, and how much did we receive for it when it was disposed of to these other countries? Particularly, was it sold at bargain prices at the expense of the Canadian public treasury?
When we examine the list of war materials sold to the Middle East, we find $771,000-odd was received for 15 Harvard aircraft sent or about to be sent to Egypt. That works out at approximately $51,000 each. That seems like a fairly good price perhaps, but the point comes up here that these planes were, as I understand it, assembled from spare parts 67509-60
Shipment of Arms Abroad. by a commercial concern, but these spare parts presumably came from government stocks.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I think we should at least be accurate. It has been made very clear two or three times that nothing about those planes came from government stocks. The Canadian Car and Foundry Company happened to be the sole supplier in the world of Harvard aircraft, and the transaction was purely a private transaction.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It had never been clear before, so far as I know-


An hon. Member:: Maybe you were away.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -that none of these came from government stocks. I am very glad the minister has now shed that further illumination on the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Everyone knew it but yourself. Why not talk about something you know about?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, he says we are talking about something we do not know anything about. That is the whole trouble with this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horace Dickey: That is true of anything you speak about in the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have brought up this matter in order to get information. We are asking for a committee to get information we should have.


Mr. Garson:: Meanwhile you talk a lot
about it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When the minister says we do not know anything about it the members of his party clap loudly. I say we do not know as much about it as we and they should know about it as members of parliament.


John Horace Dickey: All you are doing is giving misinformation.


William Earl Rowe: How would you know back there when they cannot agree up here?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must say the debate does from time to time produce a little more information. We learn a little more as it goes on, just as we learned another fact from the minister a moment or two ago which we did not know before.


John Horace Dickey: You have been told three or four times.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Undoubtedly in any of these debates as time goes on, as the minister gets a little irritable or something else of that
938	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad sort happens, he does give us a little information, a tidbit, a crumb or two which we could not have had otherwise.


John Horace Dickey: A crumb for the crumbs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, when we come to the list of arms sent to Israel we find that it is somewhat more extensive. There are 75 millimetre shells, quite evidently for Sherman tank guns. There is antitank equipment. We do not know what it is. If it is 17-pounder anti-tank equipment it is a quite large and expensive type of gun. There are tracks and spare parts for Sherman tanks. There are 25-pounder guns and accessories. There are 3-7 anti-aircraft guns, accessories, spare parts and ammuni-;ion. That is a heavy anti-aircraft gun.
I think there is no doubt that all these were government owned. I do not think the minister will interrupt at this moment and say that they had nothing to do with the government. They were all government owned pieces of equipment, and they were sold for a total of $2,067,685. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said he could not make the quantities public because the Israeli government considered this would imperil its security. However, surely parliament is entitled to know the price at which each one of these individual items was sold. What was the price for a 3-7 gun? What was the price for a 25-pounder gun? What was the price for a 75 millimetre shell? Surely we are entitled to that information. We could then compare those prices with the cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
I think one of the most pertinent things that the house and the people of Canada are entitled to know is how much all these items of military equipment cost us and how much they were sold for. In other words, to what extent are Canadian taxpayers subsidizing the export of these arms to other countries and as a result possibly doing their bit to start another conflagration?
One thing I do know, Mr. Speaker, is that a 3-7 inch heavy anti-aircraft gun is a very expensive piece of equipment. My understanding during the war was that these guns, together with the necessary fire control aiming equipment, cost several hundred thousand dollars each. They are a big and expensive gun. Under these circumstances that would mean it would only take 5, 6 or 7 of them to make up the total amount of money that sve received for all this equipment.
The 25-pounder gun is also quite an expensive piece of equipment. I think we are entitled to get information as to the prices at which each of these pieces of equipment was sold.
[Mr. Harkness.l

It would not imperil the security of the Israeli government or anybody else's security. It is a financial fact that the house should know. From looking at the list and knowing only a little about what the cost of some of these items was during the war, I strongly suspect that all this equipment has been sold at a fraction of its cost to the taxpayers of this country.
It is all very well for one of the ministers to get up now or at a subsequent time and say that the 3 [DOT] 7 heavy ack-ack gun is obsolescent. It may be obsolescent but we have nothing to replace it. Every time we ship a 3 [DOT] 7 ack-ack gun out of this country we leave a blank in our defences and so far we have nothing with which to fill it. Although it may be obsolescent it can still have quite a deterrent effect. It seems to me that- the whole policy of shipping guns out of the country without having something with which to replace them is a matter which should come under review and needs such a review in very quick order.
The same thing applies to the 25-pounder gun. There are many gunners who would say that these guns are equal, if not superior, to the United States 105 millimetre which is replacing them at the present time at very great cost. In any event, we have shipped a large number of 25-pounder guns chiefly to our NATO allies, and to my knowledge we have not received any guns to replace them. The result is that another blank has been left as far as our artillery situation is concerned. That is a further matter which should be investigated. I think it certainly requires investigation.
The general position is that we are getting rid of equipment which cost us very large sums of money at very low prices and without getting anything to replace it. As a result we are leaving ourselves short. As has been suggested by others in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will accept the suggestion put forward in the amendment and refer the whole matter to the external affairs committee or some other committee for investigation and report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I feel I ought to say a few words in this discussion although the hon. gentlemen opposite have not left very much time for a reply to some of their more extravagantly inaccurate statements.


George Alexander Drew: You could have got up at any time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I could have got up at any time earlier in the afternoon except that during that time I was in conference with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of

the United Kingdom, and I think that on the whole that was more important to the discharge of my responsibilities than listening to the hon. gentlemen opposite.


George Alexander Drew: Is this a one-man government now?


William Earl Rowe: You could have got up yesterday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is a newspaper published in Toronto which customarily supports the official opposition and sometimes vigorously condemns the government. Naturally, therefore, I do not always agree with its editorial comment, but it did have an editorial this morning with which I agree. It said that the activities of the opposition in this particular matter were becoming faintly ludicrous. Well, at least that editorial was half correct. Personally I would have dropped the word "faintly".


An hon. Member:: Have you read the editorial in the Star tonight?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been reading Hansard today, and last night the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) said that he would do his best to resist the temptation to engage in hyperbole or exaggeration. That, of course, is what the opposition have been doing all afternoon. I thought that the extreme of exaggeration and hyperbole in this debate was reached by the hon. member who has just sat down who said-and I think I took down his words correctly-that we should not be in the arms business at all in this country. I do not know what he meant by that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said the arms shipment business.


Lester Bowles Pearson: "Arms business" is what the hon. gentleman said. I took down his words. That means, of course, that we should not be able to help our friends and allies in any way in their defence.


George Alexander Drew: Nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Last night some reference was made to our obligations under the United Nations charter and it was said that we should act as good members of the United Nations in this and other matters. It is an obligation under the United Nations charter to be prepared to defend yourself and to help your friends to defend themselves against aggression. That statement by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) goes even further than the policy which was enunciated by the opposition previously, namely that we should not send arms of any kind to any part of the world except the commonwealth, North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries-
67509-60i
Shipment of Arms Abroad


William Earl Rowe: Nobody said that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) does not want to twist what I have said today and what he knows I have said on many previous occasions. I think he will admit that I said we should send arms to the members of the commonwealth and to NATO. If I did not put in the word "shipment", that was purely an error on my part.
I do not think that the minister would like to twist completely what my position has been all my life in regard to these matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not want to twist the hon. gentleman's words. I took down what he said; and as I took them down, that is what he said. If he says that the words "arms business" should have been "arms shipment", I accept his statement that that was a slip on his part. I am quite ready to admit that there is a great difference between "arms business" and "arms shipment".
This policy that was enunciated this afternoon I think goes even further than that which was enunciated by my hon. friends opposite the other night which would have -and would still do so if it were put into effect-prevented us from helping any of our friends unless we had a definite military alliance. I refer the hon. gentleman to Hansard if he does not think that is an accurate statement of what he said.
We have been vigorously attacked by the opposition for our concealment with regard to details of arms shipments, especially by the hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment. May I say that we have given more facts in parliament in regard to arms shipments-as I said the other day-than is customary in any government in London or Washington. But when there were certain details which we did not think it appropriate to give because they concerned our relations with other countries,-and I myself believe that that is a legitimate position to take-we did say that we had all these details which we should be glad to show in confidence to any hon. member opposite. Has one of the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate come to me and asked me for that information? Not one.


George Alexander Drew: Why should we take it on those terms?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the words of the old Methodist hymn, "No, not one".


William Earl Rowe: Why have parliament at all?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), in his contribution yesterday afternoon, when he
940	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad was asking for this information especially in regard to sensitive areas, said that if it is not proper to give that information here, we could have a meeting of the committee on external affairs in camera. If he is willing to receive that information in camera in the committee on external affairs, why would he not receive it in person in camera and get the same information much more quickly? He has not approached us as yet in that regard.


William Earl Rowe: Why have parliament at all?


An hon. Member:: Oh, be sensible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quite a case has been built up, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of rather flimsy evidence indeed. My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre got quite excited over the confusion arid deceit, as he would call it, with regard to the replies made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) about scrap metal. When is scrap metal mutilated and when is it not mutilated? It was explained to the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that guns are mutilated beyond repair before they are allowed to leave this country.


Mr. Churchill:: I mentioned breech blocks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman said: "Yes, it might apply to breech blocks but what I am interested in is gun barrels", whereas the minister's reply-as he will see if he will read it again-referred to guns themselves, not to any particular parts. It seems ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, to build up a case to such a high moral and emotional level on evidence of that kind.
The hon. gentleman also made great play with the fact that I and others on this side of the house did not realize that conventional weapons are modern and dangerous. Of course we realize that a conventional weapon can be both modern and dangerous. As I
have often said-and it is an obvious truism_
you can be killed by an old-fashioned bullet as well as by a new-fashioned atomic bomb. But that is not the point, Mr. Speaker. Hon. gentlemen opposite are criticizing us because we are adding to tension, are producing incentives to aggression, are causing trouble, are losing our reputation in the world, and are being toppled from our moral position. As was said by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) this afternoon-if I may be pardoned a personal reference-my own reputation as a peacemaker has now been sullied because we have sent to friendly countries, under control, some old surplus conventional weapons, small in quantity and really not very important in quality. And in doing so we have followed exactly the same 

policy as that followed by all the free governments with which we are associated and allied.


George Alexander Drew: Would the minister permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely.


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister not aware of the fact that the exports of arms and equipment in 1954 amounted to $81 million, no small amount?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is another figure, Mr. Speaker, that has been tossed into this debate.


George Alexander Drew: That is the figure given by the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who is the sponsor of this amendment, said this, as reported at page 887 of Hansard:
What in the world has happened to the millions of rounds of ammunition sent down to Central America, the Caribbean and South America? . . . Then what is going to be the outcome of this reckless disregard, as it appears to me, in handling that type of equipment?
He even went so far as to suggest that we were responsible for the revolution in Guatemala. In a few moments I shall come to the details of the shipment to Guatemala which produced the communist revolution. He also suggested that we might have had something to do with the overthrow of the government in Cuba in the few thousand dollars' worth of ammunition that went to that country; and $800,000 worth of ammunition and equipment, as he called it, that has gone to the Latin American countries in the last eight years. That was the type of thing that he put on the record. I should like later to examine in some detail one particular shipment to which he referred.
He referred first to my statement, recorded at page 557 of Hansard, that no permits were issued in 1954 or 1955 for the export of:
. . . guns, ammunition, or military weapons of any kind, or for military aircraft or military vehicles to South America.
He suggested that by a careful midnight examination of his own he had found that I had incorrectly represented the situation, and thereby must have misled the house. My original statement, Mr. Speaker-and it has been checked-is perfectly correct. No such permits were issued. Earlier in the session- and I commend this to the hon. gentleman who might refresh his memory by reading some of these back statements-I referred to the list issued in accordance with the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act, items subject to export control. That was the heading under which I gave my figures. The

hon. gentleman has shown a great deal of industry in examining the export statistics by the dominion bureau of statistics, whereas if he had come to me I would have given him the original material on which I based my answer to the house, in all of its detail, and he could have checked it against any public or private source. I should have thought that he would have considered it worth while in the course of his research to look at the control list; arms solely for sporting purposes-and this is in the control list- firing ammunition not usable in firearms designed or intended for war are clearly exempted. He could have found that out. Perhaps he did find it out and it escaped his memory before he made this statement. The various shipments to Latin American countries to which the hon. member referred, and by doing so gave the impression to the house that they had been omitted by me in my statement to the house, fell in this category. They consisted of 22 calibre rifles, shot guns, revolvers and ammunition for them.
Let me remind the house, Mr. Speaker, that such sporting weapons and ammunition for them are freely available for private purchase in shops throughout Canada. The total annual trade in such ammunition for such weapons within Canada alone is of the order of $10 million a year. A single Canadian firm does an annual business in such ammunition within Canada of some $5,800,000 a year. That, Mr. Speaker, is the perspective within which we should look at the figure of $64,000 of such items shipped within a two-year period to four different countries in South America, and over which the opposition has become so very indignant; over which they have condemned the moral standards of the government, and as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has just said, have provided the incentive to aggression.
The hon. member, throughout his remarks, returned several times, and I have mentioned this earlier, to the suggestion that the government was concealing information on this matter. I should like to remind him now, and others who have spoken on this matter, that the exemption of sporting weapons from export permits requirements appears in regulations published almost two years ago, regulations which in fact were brought to the attention of the house two weeks ago. Furthermore, the shipments of such items that have been made appear regularly in separate figures issued by the bureau of statistics. No doubt that is where my hon. friend got this hair-raising information.
The hon. member has, in fact, himself demonstrated that this information is readily
Shipment of Arms Abroad available. It is public now. My only comment on his activities is that in his haste to put these supposedly damaging figures before the house he appears to have overlooked one additional item for $155 for Venezuela in 1955.
Well, Mr. Speaker, so much for that information and so much for the deductions which have been drawn from it that we have been responsible for all sorts of dire happenings in the central and south American area, especially in Guatemala, where there was of course a little difficulty a few years ago. The hon. member referred to that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under a communist controlled government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The shipments to which he referred, to Guatemala, were in this same category, ammunition suitable only for small arms designed solely for sporting purposes. They consisted mainly of 22-calibre ammunition but some shotgun ammunition and revolver ammunition was also included. No guns of any kind were involved. These items, Mr. Speaker, were consigned by the firm in question to a Guatemalan sporting club. There is no reason to suppose that they were used for anything else than target shooting at clay pigeons. The amounts involved were small by any standards or else we might have had some reason to get suspicious of them if they were very large in amount, because you can do damage in any country even with ammunition designed to shoot clay pigeons. But in relation to the quantities of ammunition shipped, it is ridiculous to suggest that these shipments could have contributed to maintaining in power the communist infiltrated government which was replaced in July, I think, of the following year.
It is that kind of argument, Mr. Speaker, and the deductions that have been drawn from it which leads some of us on this side to wonder about the motives of the opposition in raising this matter in the way they have raised it, at a time when we are discussing with our friends in Washington, our friends in London and our friends in Paris, how best we may work together in contributing to peace, not only in the areas of the Middle East but in the other areas of the world. Only in the last few days in these discussions we have been going over the question of arms shipments to sensitive areas, especially to the Middle East. It may not have escaped the notice of hon. members that the Secretary of State of the United States this morning has reaffirmed, after the discussions which took place in Washington between representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States, that he on behalf of his government

Shipment of Arms Abroad was going to maintain the present policy and principles in the declaration of 1950. He did not intend to depart from that policy because, as was indicated, a departure from that policy would have had most unfortunate consequences in the Middle East in respect of one country at least which is not in a position to get help from behind the iron curtain that certain other countries in that area are now getting. The United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker, intends to maintain that policy, too. We, in this government, intend to maintain the same policy, and work it out in co-operation with our friends and under controls at home.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) who moved the amendment said that some of this ammunition might eventually get into the hands of the Mau Mau. I suggest that so far this ammunition has only gotten into the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite, where it is being used not with an effect that I would describe as lethal but rather as a soporific. I believe, of course, that arms policy and arms shipments are perfectly legitimate subjects to discuss. But so far, we have heard a great deal more about arms procedure than we have heard about arms policy from hon. gentlemen opposite. I must say, however, that they have, in some of the statements made from the opposition side, made their position pretty clear in regard to their refusal to send any arms except to the commonwealth countries and the NATO countries with which we have a definite military alliance.
We will continue to follow the policy that has been outlined previously, and to follow it in a way which will not be conducive to aggression or conflict but which might help, by the way it is controlled, to preserve peace by removing the temptation to an aggressor to attack an unarmed country opposite or close by. There is no greater temptation to aggression than the certainty of an easy victory. A policy, if it were adopted by all free countries, of refusing to send any arms to any country except under the conditions which have been outlined by hon. members opposite, would leave some countries weak and defenceless, and other countries which did not have any scruples about receiving arms from behind the iron curtain in a position to attack those countries. If we had followed ths policy, we might very soon have cause to regret it.
My final word, Mr. Speaker, is that the committee on external affairs will be set up very shortly. As is customary, I expect to appear before that committee. I will be very happy, as usual, to subject myself to crossexamination as complete as hon. members


opposite would like to make it in respect of any sphere of my activities, arms policy or anything else.


George Alexander Drew: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with certain statements that were made this afternoon. Hon. members know what transpired here but people outside may not see Hansard or if they do see Hansard they will not, of course, know the circumstances in which the details were put on the record. For that reason I wish to clarify one point.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) tried to create the impression that he had been deprived of some opportunity to enter this debate. His words were: "Mr. Speaker, I feel I ought to say a few words in this discussion although the hon. gentlemen opposite have not left very much time for a reply to some of their more extravagantly inaccurate statements."
It was pointed out to him by me that he had plenty of opportunity and then these were his words: "I was in conference with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom and I think on the whole that was more important to the discharge of my responsibilities than listening to the hon. gentlemen opposite-".
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hear the applause from the opposite side as I read these words. That is the attitude taken by hon. members opposite while we are talking about selling the tools of death without any restraint whatever-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: We are talking about a serious effort, to refer the subject to a committee to get the facts which have been denied to us since we met here and tried to discuss this subject. That observation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was in keeping with other observations he has made. He had been sitting here in this house for well over an hour at the time he rose, and speaker after speaker had risen. He had waited for this moment so that he could get in and take the closing period until six o'clock; that is

why he waited and for no other reason. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom left here at twenty minutes to five.
We listened to contemptuous remarks in regard to this important subject. He made light of the shipments to South America mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). He claimed they were sporting weapons. Perhaps he might explain some of the details about sporting weapons.
I have in my hand a magazine known as Field and Stream, which claims to be the outstanding sporting magazine on the North American continent and is published in New York. This will perhaps indicate to some of the hon. members that the minister was out of touch with the situation when he talked about sporting weapons. In this magazine there is an advertisement under the heading, "Everything for the sportsman." This is interesting because this is a New York publication. It is the advertisement of a firm in Montreal which reads as follows:
Famous Service Rifles-Revolvers:-30-06,	'303
Enfield Rifles. Colt, Smith and Wesson and British Webley Revolvers. Lowest Prices. Shipped duty free. International Firearms, 1011 Bleury, Montreal, Quebec.
This advertisement appears in the February, 1956, edition of Field and Stream. Is this the kind of sporting weapon the minister is referring to? I do not think he knows; in fact, he has shown a complete lack of knowledge of the facts since he entered this discussion in its earliest stages. Of course, most hon. members in this house know that sporting weapons can be pretty deadly; -303 Enfield rifles, Colt, Smith and Wesson and British Webley revolvers are not ordinarily regarded as sporting equipment but they are offered duty free under the benign arrangements made by this government.
This is the kind of subject we want to have come before a committee. We want to find out exactly what is being done. We want to find out why a private organization can sell famous service rifles and revolvers as sporting equipment and why they can promise to sell them duty free and at the lowest prices. Obviously they are in competition with the government. Perhaps they bought it for scrap, as has already been explained. That is the kind of thing that does require an explanation.
Let us now examine the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in discussing this subject. He pooh-poohed the suggestion that there was any importance to this; he indicated they were just unimportant little shipments,-these -303 Enfield rifles, Colt, Smith and Wesson and British Webley
Shipment of Arms Abroad revolvers-some old surplus international weapons small in quantity and poor in quality.
If that is so, why is he so concerned about not shipping them? If they are unimportant in quality and quantity why is he then so concerned about the right to ship these to certain parts of the world? The fact is that the statement is incorrect and more and more it demonstrates why we want to examine the evidence from someone else rather than from him.
He then made a perfectly typical remark. I think he forgot that someone might be following after him in this debate; I think he thought this debate would conclude at six o'clock-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: When I asked him if he was not aware that exports in 1954 amounted to $81 million his reply was typical. These were his words: "That is another figure, Mr. Speaker, that has been tossed into this debate."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mutual aid and to the commonwealth.


George Alexander Drew: It is not mutual aid at all; it has nothing to do with that. That demonstrates how little the hon. gentleman knows about it.


William Earl Rowe: Wrong again.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, he is wrong again. These were the exports of arms and I think they should be placed on the record. The figures are not available for 1955 but they are available for 1953 and 1954. The 1953 figures are as follows: aircraft, $24,646,151; aircraft parts, $15,600,356; cartridges for guns, rifles and other firearms, $19,873,298; guns, rifles and other firearms of all kinds, $24,109,640, making a total of $84,229,445. The figures for 1954 are as follows: aircraft, $12,601,190; aircraft parts, $15,841,058; cartridges for guns, rifles and other firearms, $13,803,510; guns, rifles and other firearms of all kinds, $39,548,560, making a total of $81,794,318. This is the scale of shipments-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mutual aid to our
allies.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What was their destination?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where did they go?


George Alexander Drew: -which of course does not include scrap, the kind of scrap that has been described here; scrap which was mutilated but had good serviceable barrels which were useful for many purposes.
Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the flighty way-indeed, the claptrap way-in which he was dealing with the subject, said this in regard to the question of the shipment of arms, and these are his

Shipment of Arms Abroad words: "It may not have escaped the notice of hon. members that the Secretary of State of the United States this morning has reaffirmed, after the discussions which took place in Washington between representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States, that he on behalf of his government was going to maintain the present policy and principles in the declaration of 1950". He then went on to give the impression that the situation was just the same and that shipments would go on.
Now, since he has referred to the Globe and Mail let me quote from the Globe and Mail a description of an article from the New York Times news service dated February 6:
Dulles' statement Indicated that there is no immediate prospect that the U.S. will grant the request to Israel for permission to buy arms in the U.S.
Mr. Dulles then went on to say:
We are not convinced that that disparity can be adequately offset by additional purchases of arms by the state of Israel. Dulles said that Israel's population is only 2,000,000 while that of the Arab states amounts to tens of millions "and they apparently have been offered access to huge stores of Soviet bloc material."
Under these circumstances, Dulles expressed the view that Israel's security could be better assured "by means other than an arms race".
That is our belief. Then follows a direct quotation from Dulles' statement which was so misinterpreted to us:
"The combined influence of the nations which would, under the U.N. charter and the tripartite declaration, be against any armed aggression," said Dulles, "is a far more effective deterrent to any potential aggression than any amount of arms which could be obtained by either side."
That is precisely the position we have taken. We have asked by this motion that the committee on external affairs be empowered to deal with this subject. That is not met by the committee on external affairs meeting. The Secretary of State for External Affairs closed his remarks by stating that this committee would soon be set up and that he would be prepared to appear before that committee. These were his words: "I will be very happy, as usual, to subject myself to cross-examination as complete as hon. members opposite would like to make it in respect of any sphere of my activities, arms policy or anything else."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: That continued noise is an attempt to shut off this debate.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: No, the minister does not know the facts. We want a committee set up that can have people come before it who do know the facts. We want to know what is being


done in regard to trafficking in the tools of death, and we have a right to know. We believe in the supremacy of parliament. An iron curtain has been closed down on the supplying of information by the votes taken yesterday.
Let us have an opportunity to examine this subject properly. There is a motion before the house which the government could accept to empower the committee on external affairs to inquire into this whole subject, to bring before it men who really know the facts and are prepared to give accurate information which we have not yet received. No more important subject will come before this house. As was said earlier today by one hon. member, if we should approach a serious period let every hon. member check his conscience and ask himself what answer he would give if he were asked to-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: The vote is on.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will please give me a chance to perform my duty. In order to do so I must be heard. The Clerk has just informed me that it is 8.15 p.m. and it is gradually getting to be 8.16 p.m. It is my duty by virtue of standing order 56 (4) (d) to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment which is now before the house.



POLICY OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have drawn attention in times past to the dangers of monopoly particularly in reference to the media for the communication of ideas. Likewise, attention has been drawn on more than one occasion by those who sit in this part of the house to the danger of attempted government control of the means of expression, especially when that control is directed to serving partisan purposes. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation claims to operate free of government control. The time has come, sir, to examine such claims and also at the same time to examine the definition of some of the terms that have been used in this regard.
Last autumn there was published a volume entitled, "The Age of Mackenzie King". The authors of that work are Bernard Ostry and H. S. Ferns, two eminent Canadian scholars now on the staff of the University of Birmingham. To say the least, the book was not complimentary to the late Mr. Mackenzie King or to the record of the Liberal party before and during the period of his leadership. Indeed, the book has gone some distance to explode some of the myths which the Liberal party has sought to create. The book has, therefore, become a controversial book.


Jean Lesage: Wait until the history of your leader's life is published.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is undeniable that it is an important book. It has been widely reviewed. There is much evidence of interest in it. It was, therefore, eminently suitable for a panel discussion on radio and television by competent persons, a panel discussion because that affords an opportunity for some degree of balance in relation to a controversial subject. I am not debating here, although I will be

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation glad to on another occasion, the contents. I am dealing here with the fact that the book is of a controversial nature and one of very high interest.
Indeed, sir, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation thought it was of sufficiently wide public interest that it decided it was suitable for its programs, programs both of television and of sound. So an approach was made to Mr. Ostry in England by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and at the request of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Mr. Ostry made a recording for use in connection with both television and sound programs in relation to this controversial book. The film and the recording were sent to Canada to be used as introductions to two 30-minute panel discussion programs which were scheduled for dates in December over the networks of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, as was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation went so far as to announce its intention to carry these programs on the network.
In the C.B.C. Times for the week December 18 to December 23-this being a well known C.B.C. publication; it is commonly referred to by the officers of the corporation as a sort of house organ-at page 6 we find, under the programs listed for Tuesday, December 20, the following:
11.00-Anthology-
That is 11.00 p.m.
Radio's literary magazine. Tonight:	The Mackenzie King Era, by Bernard Ostrey and H. S. Ferns



CBA, CBH, CBI-

[Stage Direction]
And so on.
Mr. Speaker, that television program never was carried out. The sound broadcasting program was never carried out. Why neither of these programs, notwithstanding that announcement, was never carried out has not yet been explained.
Mr. Trainor:: It is obvious.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Ostry sought from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, through its responsible officers, to be informed as to why that program, in which he had been asked to participate and in which he had already participated in the film recording and the sound recording, was not to proceed. He was met with the statement on the part of those officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the programs were not going to be broadcast because of a decision taken at Ottawa. When he pursued his question as to who at Ottawa made the decision, he was given the cryptic answer, "It was done by the directorate". When he asked what the

directorate was or who were the members of the so-called directorate, he was refused an answer.
I have been a member of the house committee on radio broadcasting since the year 1945. In that time I think there have been six or seven of those committees. I may say that never previously had I heard of such a thing as the directorate. That was the reason why I today asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) about the directorate. He indicated that he was aware of the existence of the directorate but that, at the moment of the asking of the question this afternoon, he was not in a position to tell me who constitute the personnel of the directorate.
I simply mention that on the frequent occasions when Mr. Dunton, the chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has been asked in the committee who makes decisions with regard to programs, and as to who are to go on and who are to be kept off and kindred questions, he has declined to answer. He has always said, "I take the responsibility", and he will not submit to further questioning as to who carry out the function of making these decisions. But now at long last we are told that there is a directorate, apparently functioning at Ottawa, which decides what programs shall go on the air or what shall not. In this case we are told that it was by decision of this directorate that these two arranged programs did not proceed.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) asked of the minister a question which it would have been my intention to ask concerning the reason why this program or these programs had been cancelled. As reported at page 881 of Hansard, the answer of the Minister of National Revenue was as follows. Perhaps I should read the question. The question was:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Why was the discussion on the book "The Age of Mackenzie King" cancelled by the C.B.C.?
Then the minister's answer was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have asked the C.B.C. about this matter and I am informed that it was not a case of cancelling a program. The C.B.C. reports that, while some consideration was given to the book as a possible subject for a national television network discussion, on consideration it was not thought to be a good basis for such a discussion.
There you will observe that the minister is saying that the program was not cancelled. That is an amazing statement in view of the fact that responsible officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had already informed Mr. Ostry that the program had been

cancelled. Even in the face of the arrangements which had been made, even in the face of the publication by the C.B.C. in the C.B.C. Times of its intention to broadcast that program on the television network on the evening of December 20, the minister has the audacity to say that the program was not cancelled. Mr. Speaker, we have here another example of these inaccurate answers from the government. You cannot get away from that kind of statement by mere quibbling, by saying that "session" just means "sitting", for instance, as we heard today. No, Mr. Speaker, you cannot get around a statement of that kind by any such quibbling.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are still annoyed, are you?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here is a minister saying that it was not cancelled. But the fact is that it was cancelled after it had been announced. Why was it cancelled? Who reached the decision to cancel it? Mr. Ostry has been told that the directorate-whoever they may be- made the decision to cancel it. On what grounds did they make their decision? With what information before them and with what communications before them did they reach that decision?


Mr. Pickersgill:: They probably read the
book.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is an interesting comment from the minister. I think this time the minister is right: they read the book; and thereby, Mr. Speaker, hangs the tale and no doubt the explanation.
Looking about for the source of this idea to cancel an announced program concerning a book which, as I have indicated, to say the least is not complimentary to the late Mr. King or the record of the Liberal party, is it not fair to ask this question: Where does the advantage accrue from such a cancellation? To even the most untutored in the tortuous ways of this government it is perfectly obvious that the only advantage that could accrue from the cancellation of that program was an advantage to the Liberal party and the government opposite. Hence, Mr. Speaker, we are left with two alternative explanations.
The first one is that this program must have been cancelled by request of the government. I am not so naive as to suggest tbait the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) wrote a letter to Mr. Dunton and asked that this program should be cancelled. Oh, no; I do not make that suggestion. I do not even suggest that the Minister of National Revenue necessarily picked up the telephone and called Mr. Dunton or spoke with anyone- representing the so-called directorate. I am not
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation even suggesting that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) necessarily communicated, perhaps by artful stratagem or hint, the feelings of the government in this matter or his personal feelings which would be the same thing. But, Mr. Speaker, by whatever method the view was conveyed or the hint, it is quite obvious that the feelings of the government were not offended by the cancellation. That is one of the two possible explanations.
The other alternative explanation is that the directorate, in proceeding to cancel this program, was acting in the interests of the government and the Liberal party even without direct government intervention.
Sir, of the two alternatives the second would be the worse for Canada because it would mean that the directorate, the responsible body in the Canadian Broadcasting organization, was anticipating government desires in this matter and was showing such a tender solicitude for the partisan interests of the government as would serve the desires of the government. Take your choice, Mr. Speaker, of those two alternative explanations.
Suspicion could not fail to be aroused by the method in which this matter has been handled, the secrecy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the way it went about the ugly task of the interment of the plans for this broadcast. There was no frank, straightforward statement coming from them. No, it is quite obvious that they felt they had something to hide; they had something to hold back and therefore the interment must be secret.
In addition, we have what has become the so familiar pattern in this house of another inaccurate answer from a minister. This, sir, has been an ugly act of suppression. It underlines again the dangers of monopoly in reference to an important medium for the communication of ideas. It underlines again the rank peril of government interference, direct or indirect, with this means of communication of ideas. It should not be forgotten that by the statement of responsible officials of the broadcasting corporation the decision to cancel this program, which amounts to a ban and therefore I say decision to ban the panel discussion of this controversial book, was taken at Ottawa. It was a decision to cancel a program already announced.
Where is freedom if this sort of thing can be done? There is only one T.V. network permitted in this country, and here was a program that had been arranged for the network, with all the preparations made sc far as the principal figure was concerned.
948	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
One thing remains and one alone out of the announced plan of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Gone are the plans for the panel which would have assured a variety of qualified participants in reference to a controversial subject. You will bear in mind, sir, I am not suggesting that the participants in such a panel would be men favourable to the book. The whole purpose of panel discussion, as I understand it in reference to a controversial question, is that you have a variety of points of view and the public hears all sides of the issue.
But gone are the plans for a panel discussion in reference to this controversial volume. All that remains is a plan for a review a little later on by one person, in this case by a gentleman who no doubt would have been suitable as one of the participants in a panel discussion of the book and what it has disclosed, but who now being the sole selected individual to put on a one-man review of the book, happens to be a gentleman employed by the executors of the estate of the late Mr. King as one of his literary editors. We will still recognize that the book is important enough and of sufficient public interest to have warranted the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last autumn undertaking a sound broadcast and a panel discussion on a television network.
Is this the government's idea of fair play? Is this the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's conception of its duty to the Canadian public? Rather, sir, this is one particularly igly example of the grip that the Liberal party has laid hold upon the channels of communication and its use of them or abuse of ;hem for its own partisan advantage. We have seen the same thing in reference to television iroadcasts. We were reminded not long ago hat when the corporation, feeling very un-somfortable in the face of the present situa-ion, desired that the use of the television >anels should be opened up to the political larties of this country, the objection made o the use of the channel came from the -liberal party. We shall not forget that it vas in this house on January 12 that the 'rime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), with no loubt commendable frankness, appeared to ake personal responsibility in the matter.
Let the Canadian public well realize it has ieen the Liberal party that has been denying he fair use of the television channels to the 'olitical parties. They have all the advantage iow. Anything is an excuse for putting a linister on television, but nothing is sufficient ustification for putting a representative of nother party on the television channels. The dvantage is all with the government today, nd they mean to keep that advantage just as mg as they can.


One further thing, sir; let it not be forgotten that when the representatives of the political parties were called into session to discuss the inauguration of such a service in which the various political parties of this country would be afforded an opportunity to participate, from the lips of the representative of the Liberal party at that conference there came the question as to who was going to censor the program. Here is an act of censorship. Here has been an act of banning, regardless of what the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) says. It was an act of cancellation and this has been done in a way that has accrued, so they think and undoubtedly so they hope, to the partisan advantage of the Liberal party and this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With pleasure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I understood him correctly, I understood him to say that at a meeting between the C.B.C. and the various representatives of the political parties a representative of the Liberal party asked the question, who was going to censor the program. I wonder if the hon. gentleman was present at that meeting or what his source of information was? I think we are entitled to be told because I understood this was a private meeting. I think we are entitled to be told what the authority is for that statement because I do not believe, sir, that it is true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whether or not the minister thinks it is true does not alter the fact it is true. I was not present at that meeting, and I believe he was not either, so I do not know why he arrogates that kind of authority to himself, but I will tell him I have heard it from several sources, and in every case a reputable and dependable source. There can be no doubt the remark was made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may be permitted I would say that I have had the privilege of reading the minutes of that meeting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Were they secret?


John Whitney Pickersgill: And there is nothing of the kind in the minutes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Apparently it did not get on the minutes. Did the minister have anything to do with suppressing the minutes of the meeting he was talking about that was so secret?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: I wish at this time to draw to the attention of the house some of the unfair labour practices engaged

in by the government of Canada. I do so as a result of several questions asked with regard to the post office department since this session commenced, and which were asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself with respect to the liquidation of overtime accumulated during the Christmas rush. As a result of the answers given by the Postmaster General at that time I am wondering whether we realize the seriousness of the government's attitude towards the problem of the 40-hour week and the whole question of overtime. At the time the bill to increase postal rates was before the house we were told it would be necessary to increase the postal rates in order to take care of the additional costs of instituting the 40-hour week and the wage increases involved.
During the course of that debate many of us wondered just how clear the government was in its understanding of the 40-hour week. I recall asking the Postmaster General at that time if he was aware of the fact that the normal practice for a 40-hour week was to pay time and a half for all time worked in excess of the 40 hours. At that time he replied that the government policy was to give the workers a 40-hour week and if they worked over 40 hours they would then be paid at their regular rates of pay. As a matter of fact, it was much worse than that at the time. We were told that the regular postmen who agreed to work a sixth day would be paid at the rate offered to temporary or casual help, which would mean in effect that they would be working at a rate less than their regular rate of pay. Then, after a great deal of confusion on the part of the minister, we did get the impression that the government policy in this regard was to require that the employees work 40 hours and then to ask them if they would work a sixth day. They went much further than that, too. There were complaints coming to hon. members from postal groups throughout the country referring to the efforts made on the part of the postmasters to get personnel to work six days; and mark this, while they were supposed to be working a 40-hour week they were asked to go back and work six days at their regular rates of pay. The government could see nothing wrong with that at the time. I think that is a clear indication that this government has no concept of what the 40-hour week really is.
There were several other matters which entered into the discussion at this time and these matters were brought up at a later time when the estimates of the Postmaster General were before the house. I am not going to refer to them except to state that the pattern indicates the lamentable record
Post Office Department-Labour Relations of the government in its relations with its employees. We were happy that the government backed down in connection with the question of the priority of holidays which would have been destroyed to a large extent by a change in regulations.
Not long ago the government proposed to introduce penalties for those who were late in arriving at work, and we remember the tremendous outcry which quite naturally arose from those who were affected. Hon. members in this house indicated the folly of that plan, an insult to a loyal group of public servants.
A short while ago the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) brought up the question of the installation of television in the post office in Peterborough. It is quite true that the government has not talked about putting television in any other post office but we are led to believe that this is more or less an experiment and if the government is satisfied with it then I presume there will be a movement to instal television in other post offices across Canada.
Each of these instances is serious enough in itself but when you see the over-all pattern indicating the callous disregard on the part of the government for the rights of public servants in this country we realize that the government should undertake a revision of their entire attitude.
While we are talking about the dismal record and maladministration on the part of the Post Office Department we must mention the latest instance, which has to do with the liquidation of Christmas overtime. I received, Mr. Speaker, a copy of a resolution passed at the January meeting of the Regina branch of the Canadian postal employees association and I should like to read the resolution because I think it clearly outlines the legitimate complaints of these postal workers:
Whereas-
During the Christmas rush, postal workers are called on to work 14 hours per diem (less lunch periods) in order to process the tremendous amount of extra mail to ensure delivery before the holiday.
And whereas-
Workers are put to additional expense for extra meals and for taxies.
And whereas-
Four extra hours are worked per week before time and one half is paid,
Therefore we of the Regina Branch of the Canadian Postal Employees Association do unanimously protest the recent ruling of the Post Office Department to liquidate some of this overtime during the month of January.
When this question was raised in the house the Postmaster General made the most amazing statement. He said that there is nothing wrong with this because this is the practice throughout the civil service. In other words,

Post Office Department-Labour Relations crime is not important if it has become compounded. The fact that this is the practice throughout the civil service is a poor excuse for treating the post office employees in this shameful manner.
The minister made another amazing statement when he said there is an order in council which covers the question of overtime. Well, who passed the order in council? How can the government hide behind an order in council on a matter of this kind? The government passed the order in council stipulating that overtime would not be paid under certain circumstances but instead this time would be liquidated during the month of January.
My contention is simple: If the government could pass an order in council restricting and impeding rights of postal workers, then the same government can rescind that order, in council and treat the postal workers properly. If the minister considers that because this is common practice throughout the civil service it is an excuse for the poor treatment of one group of civil servants, then I suggest it is time the government reviewed the system. I should state, Mr. Speaker, that while I am giving a specific instance concerning the Post Office Department I am by no means suggesting that the Postmaster General is more at fault than is any other member of the government. This is a decision which has been made by this government and the Postmaster General is apparently carrying out the government's policy in this regard. It is that government policy which I am protesting at this time.
I think we have to be quite clear that a 40-hour week means that the workers work 40 hours and every hour worked in addition to the 40 hours is overtime and must be paid for at overtime rates of pay. I think we have to recognize that the payment of overtime rates is not a question of incentive to the employee. In reality, overtime rates of pay are a penalty against the employer. A great many unions forbid their members to work overtime because they realize that many employers use overtime as a means of keeping their labour force at the irreducible minimum and that if overtime were not paid the labour force would have to be increased.
Moreover, if there are employees who are not averse to working overtime I suggest it is because their rates of pay are so low they are compelled to accept overtime as a means of supplementing their income and the answer to that is simply not working more overtime but paying more adequate rates of wages.
I have stated before in this house that the government of this country ought to be setting an example to all other employers in Canada

but instead of that we find departments of this government which have established the reputation of being the worst employers in Canada as far as treatment of their employees is concerned.
I ask this question: How many employers in this country could get away with what the Post Office Department apparently got away with this year? I wonder how many packing houses or how many factories could say to their men around Christmas, "We are awfully busy this year and are going to require you to work many hours in excess of the regular work week; if you work you can take time off in January." They would not get away with it; there is not a trade union in this country which would put up with it for a moment, and yet civil servants of this government are being obliged to put up with that sort of thing.
I make the plea to the government at this time that they give serious consideration to this matter and recognize their responsibility to the people of this country and that they ought to be setting a good example to other employers rather than setting a bad example. They can set a good example by taking into consideration all the aspects of the 40-hour week and doing away with unfair labour practices which have given the government a black eye as far as their relationship with their employees is concerned.
I say to the Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe) and through him to the government:	Now is the time to pay heed to the
representations that have been made. I do not know what the Postmaster General and other ministers of the crown do when representations are received. I have read the resolution passed by the branch in my constituency and I think it indicates to hon. members the reasonableness of the request these people are making. They are not asking for anything which any employee in this country has not the right to get.
What is the government going to do about it instead of getting up and saying they are not going to do anything in connection with this department because it would affect other departments. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) stood up in this house last year when the post office estimates were being considered and said that they did not want to discuss this matter at that time because it had to do with the civil service commission and the civil service as a whole.
I am not levelling my criticism at the Postmaster General alone. I ask him and his colleagues in the government to give active consideration to the request made by these

public servants and usher in a new and better concept of labour relations in the government service.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the subject raised by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis). I have had occasion before to speak in regard to this matter for certain civil servants. I think the time is long past when any branch of the government of Canada should adhere to the old method of asking workers to work overtime for the privilege of taking time off a little later. As far as the post office employees are concerned they are glad to do this and are ready to work overtime at a time of the year when most people like to have time with their families. But when they do this they are asked to take time off at a period in the year when there is not much else they can do except to sit at home. Surely this government is advanced enough to get away from that old way of treating employees.
I am not going to say much more in this connection. I think all that needs to be done is to draw to the attention of the government how obsolete this sort of treatment is and to ask the government to treat the civil service on the same basis as the employees of private industry are treated. Times have changed in the last few years as far as the relations of workers and employers in industry are concerned. The workers are no longer standing in daily fear of what may happen to them in their employment. They have developed organizations and are thus able to demand consideration from their employers which they never would get without such organizations.
I have not the press clipping with me but since coming down here I read an article in a paper published in Quebec-I think the incident occurred in that province-dealing with the prosecution of some employers in the lumbering industry for cruelty to the horses used in their operations. The judge was quite scathing in his remarks and he said something like this: The workers in industry have organized and can demand proper working conditions, but the horses are not in a position where they can organize, and when cases of this kind are brought before them the courts should see that animals are treated properly. I intended to bring that clipping down with me and I probably should have it, but I left it on my desk.
That brought home to me the fact that only a few years ago the workers in this industry had just as little to say about the conditions under which they had to work as the horses had. But things have changed. I suggest
Post Office Department-Labour Relations to the Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe) that he discuss this matter with his administrative staff and I think they will soon realize how old-fashioned it is to say to an employee, "The circumstances are such that we want you to work overtime for the next two or three weeks and then a few weeks later you can take time off as we will not need your services then".
A worker should be paid for his services. If he works overtime he should receive a higher income. When he receives that higher income he should be able to do with it what he likes and in his own time and not be at the beck and call of his employer, whether that employer be the government of Canada or private industry.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken privately to the minsters about this matter of post office employees, as well as hourly-rated employees in the national parks. I think these two matters are sufficiently related to justify their being dealt with at this time. I feel I should express my appreciation to the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) for having brought forward this matter, and indicate that I intend to support him in his contention that an employee, whether working for the government or for industry, should have equal rights and privileges. When it is impractical or impossible to carry out the amount of extra work in a post office during the Christmas rush, it is the normal practice to hire temporary employees, but it would seem that they are not extending this practice sufficiently far to provide for all the extra work that is required. Therefore the regular employees are required to work overtime during the Christmas rush and then take time off when they are not required. A more orderly consideration should be given at the outset to this, and if we have enough employees on regular employment that it would cause no dislocation to have them take time off during the work week, then we are not making the best use of our regular employees. If they are required to work overtime, in the province, particularly, where the work week is defined, they should not be expected to work in excess of that work week without some compensation. I do not believe that the compensation is set down in the actual statutes. They simply state the work week as so many hours. Usually the employees make their own arrangements with the employer as to what compensation shall be paid. Certainly overtime is not straight time at regular rates. They should be compensated at rates higher than the regular rates when required to work over the eight hours or over the 40-hour or 44-hour week, as the case may be.

Pensions for Disabled Persons
The other question with which I am concerned is the matter of day rate employees working in the national parks. Those who are in the civil service have their regular work week set down by the civil service commission; and in many cases' it is eight hours less per week than their fellow employees working almost side by side with them. The civil service employees will be able to call it a week on Friday evening in many cases, while the day rate employees must continue to work on through Saturday and very often at a lower rate of pay. We understand, of course, that in such services as are provided in national parks Saturday and Sunday work must be carried on. In that case, I understand, the practice is to give the employees days off during the week, but the daily rate employees have been required to work longer hours and have not been compensated or have not had their hours adjusted. I thought I should bring that matter also to the attention of the minister.



PENSIONS FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, the reason why the Conservative party is the party of the future in Canada is precisely because it is the only party whose representatives are expressly directed to represent faithfully the exact wishes of all their constituents, regardless of party affiliation.
One of the most tragic things in this country lies in the fact that enough people have not stopped to realize how badly this country is being governed. This government has become impotent and, through non-use of its governmental functions, has become atrophied and petrified.
May I dispose of the recent remarks of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart)? Yes, I wrote to the Creditist Movement president in my area, Mr. Armand Grondin, and it was a pleasure for me to assist them in a few subscriptions to their journal, Vers Demain. My only regret is that I did not suggest that those subscriptions be sent to the ministers and the hon. members across the way. I am of the Conservative party, but that does not stop me from being grateful to the thousands of former Liberals in my riding who voted for me and the Conservative party. Those Liberals took one look at the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) and all the other ministers and the numerous Liberal M.P.'s who came to my riding, and they all said they would never vote Liberal again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Byron Horner: The Liberal government-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would resume his seat while I am on my feet. Perhaps if the hon. member would state his grievance to the Chair, we would have more order in the house.


Ralph Byron Horner: Mr. Speaker, my grievance-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Byron Horner: -is the treatment the Liberal government is giving Canada. All that the Liberal members have to do to be defeated is to be seen and heard by the people of Canada. It has happened in my riding in the last by-election on September 26. Former Liberal members in my riding are unanimous in stating that it is not the Liberals who left the Liberal government; but it is the Liberal government which has left the people of Canada. Let me say this. I would much rather wake up on the morrow of an election-


An hon. Member:: You will.


Ralph Byron Horner: -and find myself grateful to the many former Liberals and Creditists, than to find myself in the position the Liberal members are in; of having to be grateful to the communists.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member again that he must resume his seat when I rise? May I remind the hon. member also that we are engaged in the discussion of a motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply? On this occasion, hon. members may raise grievances within the legislative competence of this parliament, but so far I fail to see that the hon. member is raising a grievance that is in order under our rules. I must ask the hon. member to keep his remarks within the rules of this house.


Mr. Green:: On a point of order, may I suggest to Your Honour that you also remind the government supporters in this house that it is against the rules to shout down a member who is speaking?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have found that in this house certain conduct usually invites certain replies. As soon as I found that disorder was taking place, the hon. member who has just spoken will realize that I rose and requested order for the hon. member who had the floor.


Ralph Byron Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to my grievance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Ralph Byron Horner: -but I had wished to dispose of the attacks that had been made the other day by the hon. member for Charlotte, whose tactics-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I at this moment also remind the hon. member that he will of course not refer to a debate of the same session which was concluded on a previous occasion.


Ralph Byron Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, my grievance is invalids' pensions.


An hon. Member:: The price of potatoes.


Ralph Byron Horner: It has got to the point in this country that unless a person possesses certificates from several doctors stating that the only reason he is alive is that he cannot afford to be buried, he cannot get the invalids' pension. I am convinced that the only body in Canada which is so completely and permanently disabled that it can fully qualify for the invalids' pension-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is completely repetitious debate. The hon. member went into this question in the speech from the throne debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska.


Ralph Byron Horner: As I say, Mr. Speaker, the only body in Canada which in my opinion is fully qualified 'to receive the invalids' pension at the moment, which is so fully, completely and permanently disabled that it can no longer act and can no longer move, is the body politic of the present Liberal government. They do not need any certificates at all to get a pension.


An hon. Member:: Is that your grievance?


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ralph Byron Horner: No. I gather it is possible to speak on more than one grievance. As a boy going to school I was taught to hold this house in high regard as a sort of sanctuary where the voice of the people was heard and listened to. What a disappointment! What a horrible impression must remain in the minds and hearts of the people who come and sit in the galleries of the house! The other day I was tempted to cross the floor-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: We do not want you.


An hon. Member:: Stay where you are.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I request hon. members kindly to preserve order while the hon. member is stating his grievance.
Pensions for Disabled Persons


Ralph Byron Horner: Frankly I was worried because there was one member across the way whose neck was horizontal and, I thought, possibly broken, while his body was vertical and he was sound asleep.
Then I have another grievance. I come from a French-speaking riding and when I come here I should like to speak in French.
I feel there should be translation facilities in the house which would permit every member to hear me in English simultaneously when I speak in French, just as they have at the United Nations. Then there should be recording devices to supplement the shorthand notes of the reporters which are never 100 per cent accurate.
Why does the government not give these desks to some poor school district in my riding and supply us with desks under which we would have room to put our knees and where we could do some work? Furthermore, there should be a waiting room where we can receive and greet people who come to see us as members of parliament. Something should be done now to remove the bad impression which this House of Commons gives the people of Canada when they come to visit us. People must be made to respect this house and honour the noble traditions of democratic government. Not one person in ten who visits here leaves without an impression of having been let down.
The tragedy of Canada is that our people do not realize how indifferently, how inadequately and how badly we, the Canadian people, are governed. The government-financed Liberal propaganda machine has, by hollering loud and long and by dint of repetition, lulled far itoo many Canadians into believing that all is well and that this country may continue in this slap-happy, indolent method of government while we struggle with only a small part of the Canadian heritage which would be ours if we had in Canada a progressive wide-awake government, which only the Conservative party can provide.
I was forcibly reminded of this during the recent by-election campaign when the real issues were brought before a people that had hitherto placed its confidence in the Liberal party. If the Canadian people knew the facts they would resolve never to vote for this government again. In the time of the late Mackenzie King it was government on the advice received at seance meetings through these professional mediums, of dead people and dead dogs. Of course those were the days before high fidelity and the late prime minister is reported having complained that the voices from the grave were often scratchy. Of course he never bothered to look under the draped tables in these

Income Tax-Pension Funds seance meetings to see the old gramophone which brought him these dead voices.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I really hope X do not have to rise once more. Surely the hon. member must realize that we are discussing grievances, and X cannot see that the hon. member's remarks have been in order for the last several moments. As I said before, I have granted the leniency which I think is due a new member, but I really hope I will not have to rise to my feet once more.


Ralph Byron Horner: My grievance, Mr. Speaker, was originally with certain aspects of the Department of National Health and Welfare and primarily invalids' pensions. In my county about 2 per cent of the people entitled to invalids' pensions are getting them. It has become a problem of the utmost importance; the department must take action to establish honest and just measures by which those people who are prevented from earning a living because of sickness can get these pensions. It is now nothing more than a means of propaganda fostered by the Liberal propaganda machine to get votes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Administered by the
provinces.


Ralph Byron Horner: It does not help any province. It does nothing, and only one person in a hundred is able to get a pension. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the department hide behind all sorts of excuses and say that the provinces have something to do with it. The provinces come back and say that the department uses dictatorial methods in establishing the policies that must be followed with regard to invalids' pensions. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will probably say that something may be done in the very distant future, but we want something done now to give these pensions to the people who deserve them. In my opinion the government shirks its duty and is irresponsible in its attitude to the people by continuing to state that we have invalids' pensions when in fact invalids' pensions are not available to the people who should get them. Can my complaint and my grievance be any more clear than that?
I say, Mr. Speaker, that we in Restigouche-Madawaska, and in the maritimes generally, are fed up. We are tired of this government which fails to recognize, through indolence, indifference and apathy, the real and vital problems with which we have to deal from day to day. Let the government wake up to the needs of the Canadian people and the needs of the maritime provinces. Let the government realize that it is responsible to

the maritime provinces as well as to the people in the rest of Canada. I am getting away from my main grievance again, Mr. Speaker, but I have finished what I wish to say now.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the hon. member
permit a question? Is the hon. member still prepared to use the term he has used in this house on January 17 when he sees this poster which says, and I translate: "$5 for your potatoes; vote for Van Horne".


Ralph Byron Horner: I want to answer that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.



PENSION SCHEMES


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I would not for a moment attempt to compete with the highly volatile and explosive member who has preceded me. In listening to his remarks and noting his mannerisms, his verbosity and loudness, I am reminded of a member who sat to my left some years ago.


An hon. Member:: Where is he now?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He remained in this house a very short time. He has long since disappeared from this chamber.
I rise to make a mild request. I may say that my requests are always mild. In fact, one of my political opponents on one occasion said that I was the mildest-mannered man that had ever cut a political throat. Anyway,
I am going to be quite brief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not take long.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A number of working people in my constituency and in other constituencies in Canada are very much concerned about the income tax regulations with regard to pension schemes and things of that sort. On that account last session I dealt with the question in the house at some length and on that occasion I was pleased to note with what great interest the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) listened to my representations. I understand that later on a departmental committee was formed to study this question. I know it is a matter of great concern to many working people because I have had it raised with me in conversations and I have received a number of letters about it. Many people interested in pension plans are much concerned about this matter and are waiting with some impatience for the decision of the government in this respect.
I rise at this time only to urge upon the minister that the government make an announcement in this respect at as early a date

as possible because we are approaching the time when negotiations are carried on and things of that sort. There are many men who are much concerned about what the decision of the government is with respect to the application of the income tax regulations to pension funds in this country.



REFERENCE TO MISTAKE IN BY-ELECTION ADVERTISEMENT

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my grievance is one which I shall state briefly. I am prompted to state it because of the fact that the hon. member who spoke previous to the last one was the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne). I hold in my hand a page from Le Madawaska-


Ralph Byron Horner: That was a mistake.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -published at Edmundston, New Brunswick, on September 22, 1955.


Ralph Byron Horner: That was a mistake.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As everyone can see, it has a picture of the very good-looking hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska and it has an appeal in French to the constituents of that riding to vote for him. It is perfectly in order for such an appeal to be made but I should like to call to the attention of the house the first item on this page. My grievance will then be quite clear if my French is understandable.


Ralph Byron Horner: It is a mistake by a Liberal newspaper..


Stanley Howard Knowles: It reads as follows:
(Translation):
Increase of pensions: in May 1954, all Liberal members, including Jean Lesage and Bona Arsenault, voted against the motion submitted by Stanley Knowles, Progressive Conservative member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to increase the pension by 50 per cent.
(Text) :
I think my grievance is obvious. One is obliged to take a lot of things in this political life but I do not like being characterized as a Progressive Conservative deputy although I was pleased to have the support of that party as well as the support of other members on this side of the house on my motion calling for an increase in the amount of the old age pension.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I had attempted to rise following the conclusion of the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) dealing with the particular subject concern-
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ing the C.B.C. I want to say a few words in that connection in view of the fact that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) was rather reluctant to answer some of the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Eglinton.
In putting forward the criticisms I am going to make, may I say that I am going to try to make those criticisms in a constructive manner. The C.B.C. is after all a child of this government, and I would hate to see anything happen which would result in its being discredited by those forces which apparently have been brought to bear on it. I am just as much interested in the case that was made by the hon. member for Eglinton in regard to this matter about which he spoke, namely this controversial program, as is the hon. member for Eglinton; but I am afraid that the points the hon. member for Eglinton was trying to make were such as to cast reflection and to try to discredit the C.B.C. rather than to get justice for the book in question. I am also sure that the Minister of National Revenue and the C.B.C. in particular are going to have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the hon. gentleman is following the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglinton earlier this evening? If so, I am just asking myself whether he is in order inasmuch as there have been, as he well knows, intervening subjects which have been discussed. If, on the other hand, the hon. gentleman had not been recognized following the hon. member for Eglinton, I think perhaps leniency might be extended to him.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I rose I pointed out that I had attempted to rise following the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglinton. As I was saying, I am concerned about this particular question that has been raised by the hon. member for Eglinton. As a matter of fact, I myself raised it in this house no later than this afternoon. I am worried that there is not going to be sufficient explanation to clear the C.B.C. That is the point that I want to make in the few minutes that I am going to speak on this question. If the C.B.C. is going to be an instrument of government propaganda, then it v/ill lose all the significance and all of the value for which it was set up. Until the government explains its position or until the C.B.C. explains, as I am sure it is going to have an opportunity to do, what has happened in this particular instance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Bryson). It is unfortunate that he could not get the floor immediately after the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). I suppose at that time he overlooked the fact that there was no amendment before the house. When there is no amendment before the house the subject which is introduced by an hon. member may be discussed until completed. Once another subject has been introduced by another hon. member, as was the case earlier this evening, one cannot revert to the former subject.
There are only a few minutes left. If the house is prepared to give its unanimous consent it can do so. Otherwise, I could not create a precedent whereby a subject would have been introduced, another subject intervening and then a reference to the former subject. See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 468.


Walter Edward Harris: As this is the first motion of this kind during this session, Mr. Speaker, it might be permissible for hon. members not to be as aware of the situation as they will be later. I suggest the hon. member have permission to continue. ,


Mr. Speaker:: As there is unanimous consent and since this is not going to be considered as a precedent, the hon. member may continue.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: My remarks will only be of a few minutes' duration. I should like to say that I believe a great many people are concerned about the future of the C.B.C. They see something that is good in the C.B.C. We must keep the C.B.C.
As I said in the first instance, my criticisms are based on the proposition that we must not have any government interference that might result in the misuse of that organization. I would say that until the government has cleared up this question doubt and suspicion will remain in the minds of a great many people that this public institution is being misused by this government in order to keep from the people what would appear to be something that was not in the interests of the Liberal party. I do not think that is good.
I hope, therefore, that the minister is able to clear the C.B.C. on that score.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: There are only a few minutes remaining, but I should like to state a matter of privilege. It seems to me that when time is limited under our new rules for a certain debate, perhaps some arrangement might be made where there could be a more equitable distribution of the time between the various parties in the house. Now you will notice perhaps my point of privilege when I explain that a debate took 
place the other day wherein the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke twice to the exclusion of even permitting another group to mention why they were going to vote in a certain way on the amendment. All day yesterday and today we debated an amendment to the motion that you leave the chair. The Leader of the Opposition and many others spoke on that motion. Now, that was in the form of a grievance.
As soon as that motion was disposed of a member of the same party rose to take the floor. Perhaps he had a right to do it, but he spoke on the same subject on which the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) asked a question today. Perhaps he would have followed that with his grievance if the next party in line had obtained the floor. It simply means this, Mr. Speaker, that there should be some gentlemanly agreement and fairness in the distribution of time. It does seem to me that when one party leaves off, at least the other party should be able to follow. After that, I am not too concerned. Much of that responsibility, I think, rests with our Conservative friends. If they expect all parties to be fair they had better be fair now because they may not be sitting in that preferred position after the next election.


Owen C. Trainor: So say you.


Ernest George Hansell: They will look to others who are in that position to be fair. I mention this as a point of privilege, and I think when it is considered perhaps all will agree that my point of privilege is fairly well taken.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege,
I should like to point out for the information of the hon. member that in speaking tonight after the vote on the amendment I was speaking for the first time in this debate. As to the second point, his suggestion that the matter I was discussing had been raised by way of a question by another hon. member,
I may tell him that I also was concerned in that matter. He apparently was not in the house to hear me say that I had intended to ask a similar question and did ask a question this afternoon. I had also informed the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort that I intended to raise this question here tonight. There was no intention on his part to raise it, as he indicated to me at that time, so there is no ground for any suggestion that any member was prevented from raising the same question I raised here tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has said, it is a matter that hon. members could well either discuss amongst themselves through the usual channels in order to arrive at some understanding or else if an hon. member

believes that the member taking the floor should not be doing so he can always move a motion that must be put without debate, that is that the hon. member be now heard. Standing order No. 29 reads:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
I will do my best to distribute the time as fairly as possible, but as I say the house can always take care of the matter because by virtue of the standing order I have just quoted it is in their own hands.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services), $670,015.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
92. Departmental administration. $4,379,430.
Item stands.
Supply
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR 179. Departmental administration, $702,905.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE 244. Departmental administration, $1,222,800.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE 285. General administration, $3,348,014.
Item stands.
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT 324. Departmental administration, $1,596,132.
Item stands.
Progress reported.

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall take the resolution having to do with the guarantee of bank loans, followed by the resolution having to do with the payment of storage charges.


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