1957-04-12

THE LATE THOMAS PATRICK HEALY

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone of us was deeply shocked to learn yesterday evening of the death of our dear colleague the hon. member for St. Ann, Mr. Thomas Patrick Healy. The loss of one who had such a secure place in our esteem will cast a sad note on what we expect may be the last day of this session. We were sorry that ill health forced Mr. Healy to cut short his attendance at the United Nations a few weeks ago, where he was serving on the Canadian delegation, but we had hoped that the excellent care he was receiving from his family and from his medical advisers would enable him to make a complete recovery and be with us again soon.
Mr. Healy was born in Montreal 63 years ago, of Irish-Canadian parentage. He was educated at St. Anne's public school, and later was a member of the firm of Healy Brothers Limited in Montreal. In 1938 he was elected an alderman of the city of Montreal in a by-election, and confirmed in that position a year later at a general election. In 1942 he was re-elected by acclamation as a councillor of the city of Montreal, and he was re-elected in 1944, 1947, 1950 and 1954.
Thomas Healy was first elected to the House of Commons at the general election of 1940 and was re-elected at every general election since that time, with majorities which showed the high regard in which he was held by his constituents. While he did not speak frequently in debate, he was very close to his constituents and untiring in looking after their interests. He concerned himself particularly with railway and other transportation matters of interest to the city of Montreal. He made an important contribution to the house committees which studied these matters. He was also chairman of the House of Commons committee on printing.
Tom Healy, as he was known to everyone, was one of the most likeable personalities in the House of Commons. His shrewd Irish wit made him a cheerful companion, and he brought gaiety and charm wherever he went. His optimistic outlook, his ability to see the brighter side of things, even in the
darker moments, made him a highly treasured colleague. All of us who have had the pleasure of knowing him will miss him greatly, and I know everyone in the house will join with me in expressing our deep sympathy to his wife and to his family in the great loss they have suffered.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in everything the Prime Minister has said I join in complete accord. Tom Healy was a friend of us all, a courteous and warm-hearted gentleman, a happy person, a good public servant. Of no one can much more be said.
I think all of us have a feeling of deep sadness which comes from the passing of a personal friend. That is how I feel about him, and I join with the Prime Minister in extending to the widow and the family sincere and heartfelt sympathy.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think everything that can be said has now been said by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I merely want to add that all of us, as has already been said, who knew Tom Healy will miss him sadly from the House of Commons if we come back again and he is not here. I want to express to the Prime Minister and his colleagues our sympathy in their loss, because I am quite sure that his wit and his charm enlivened many of the discussions within the party itself.
I,	too, would say on behalf of this party and myself that we extend to Mrs. Healy and, I believe, three daughters, our sympathy in their sad and very sudden bereavement.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it is all too frequently that the house has had to mark these sad occasions of the loss of respected members of the house. Especially during the past year or two they have been altogether too frequent. We looked upon Mr. Healy, the late hon. member for St. Ann, as a very fine man, humble and unassuming, friendly and genuine in every way. We respected him and we join with the Prime Minister in expressing to his family and his friends and the members of the Liberal party, who will certainly mourn the loss of a very respected member, our genuine sympathy.
I express the hope that the affairs of state and of parliament will not be allowed to weigh so heavily upon the members that

External Affairs
they will put themselves in jeopardy in the days ahead. I think we have to learn how to live, we have to learn how to take these responsibilities without having to live under tensions that so frequently cause us to go down. Mr. Speaker, we join in the expressions of sadness and sympathy that have been made here this morning.


Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word at this time. Tom Healy and I have been close friends ever since we came here in 1940. For the past 12 years we shared the same office and during that time I came to know him very well. He was one of the kindest persons I have ever known and will, I am sure, long be remembered for his witty, generous, loyal and friendly manner to everyone as well as for his natural art for making friends. I personally will miss him very much.
I would like to join with the Prime Minister and all those who have spoken today in extending to Mrs. Healy and her family my sincere sympathy in their great loss.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the house that word has been received from the Canadian delegation in Saigon of the death early this morning of Mr. A. E. L. Cannon, an officer of the Department of External Affairs, who was in charge of the Saigon office of the Canadian delegation to the international supervisory commission of Viet Nam. Our information is that Mr. Cannon was stabbed by some unknown assailant in his residence during the night. We have been advised that the South Viet Nam police have started their investigation. The Canadian government will be represented at this investigation, and arrangements are being made to have one of the legal members of the delegation staff in Hanoi to proceed to Saigon at once to undertake this work.
Mr. Cannon was the son of the late Hon. Lucien Cannon, former justice of the superior court of Quebec and at one time solicitor general for Canada. After distinguished service for six years with the Royal Canadian Air Force during the war he joined the Department of External Affairs and has served in Canada and abroad, his last appointment being to Viet Nam in January of this year. I may add that Mr. Cannon volunteered for this difficult service.
The sincere sympathy of the government, and I know of every hon. member of this house, will go to Mr. Cannon's wife, his two children and his mother.


UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement made on April 10 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in regard to the circumstances connected with the death of our ambassador to Egypt. In order to clear up the matter once and for all, will the minister say that the allegations and statements made before the subcommittee of the United States Senate on March 13 and 21 specifically were untrue, unjustified and had no basis in fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would want to take into consideration the statement in the Gazette and possibly later in the day I will be able to give a more considered reply.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the statement in the Montreal Gazette this morning where there was a new twist on the Norman dispute, I wonder if the Prime Minister has anything to add to the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs last Wednesday.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I think the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on Wednesday and the notes that have been handed to the secretary of state for the United States cover the whole matter.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that I hope an effort will be made to make a statement today, because I feel that the reports which are appearing in United States newspapers, in order to excuse themselves, are endeavouring to place Mr. Norman under a new cloud. I think this should be cleared up immediately, specifically and categorically.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That will be done.


UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to address to the Prime Minister. Has the United Nations emergency force now any function to perform in the Suez canal area? I ask that because of the statement made on November 29 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when, describing the functions of that force, he included the words "and to take steps to reopen this

canal and secure freedom of navigation". Has that function, which the force was supposed to perform originally, been dropped?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will have to look at the exact terms of the resolution which was passed by the general assembly and which determined what were to be the functions of the United Nations force; and I shall endeavour to give the answer, in accordance with the terms of the resolution, at some later hour this day.


Howard Charles Green: I had in mind what the position is today, whether this force now has any function to perform in the canal area.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As I have just stated, I will have to look at the exact terms of the resolution under which the United Nations emergency force was set up before I can answer the hon. gentleman's question. I shall endeavour to do that as early as possible today, and to find some opportune moment at which I can ask for unanimous consent to give the answer.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Prime Minister also bring the house up to date with regard to the functions of the force in the Gaza strip? It would appear that it is now principally responsible for protecting the Egyptians against the Israelis. Perhaps the Prime Minister could give us up to date information on that situation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The most I could do would be to bring the house up to date on the information we have received. The Gaza strip is quite a distance removed from Ottawa, and the information we get is from the reports made to the United Nations, by the officer commanding the force. I will supply the house with the latest information we have received through that channel.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked what progress had been made in connection with the establishment of a national park in Newfoundland. I replied then that the boundaries had been defined and that formal agreement should be reached within the next 10 or 15 days.
I am now pleased to announce that word was received that the government of the province of Newfoundland has passed an order in council transferring the land to Her
Inquiries of the Ministry Majesty the Queen in right of Canada. An order in council was passed here yesterday proclaiming the area a national park. In consultation with Newfoundland it has been decided to call the new park the Terra Nova national park.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Nanaimo asked whether it was true, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of Thursday, April 11, that the customs officers at Dorval airport were enforcing a provincial ban on the circulation of certain United States magazines in the province of Quebec.
The answer is that they were not enforcing any provincial ban. The magazines specifically mentioned have all been prohibited entry under tariff item 1201. If this classification under the prohibitory tariff item agrees with any ban that the provincial government may have placed on these same publications, it is a coincidence.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of press reports in yesterday's Toronto Telegram and in this morning's Globe and Mail.
Has the Prime Minister discussed with his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) the propriety of the minister continuing as an executor of the Dunn estate during the period when that estate has been negotiating with respect to the sale of its holdings in Algoma Steel to a group of companies including Avro Canadian, which has been receiving very large contracts from various government departments, including the Department of Defence Production?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss this matter with his colleague.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will do
whatever I feel is required to be done in order to avoid having anyone subjected to the kind of suspicions that are insinuated in many of the questions asked in this house.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hayden Sianton (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Twenty-two employees of the Canadian National Railways at Brock-ville received notice of lay-off to take effect March 27. On the eve of the lay-off they received further notice that there would be no cessation of work for the time being. Would the minister intercede with the Canadian National Railways officials on behalf of these men so they may be assured of permanent employment?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring to the attention of the management the representations contained in this question.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question of which notice has been sent him. Has any decision been reached on the request of fishermen's groups on the west coast to have the limit on vessels insured under the fishermen's indemnity fund raised from $7,500 to $10,000, so that new gill netters and trailers can be included?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minisier of Fisheries):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government has approved raising the limit from $7,500 to $10,000 on fishing vessels on both coasts. The premium rate will remain at 1 per cent.


Mr. Benneft:: May I ask the minister
whether this will be extended to the fishermen of the great lakes?


James Sinclair: The reason we are able to offer this insurance at the low rate of 1 per cent is because the work is handled by our fisheries officers. The fisheries of Ontario are looked after by the provincial government, so we have no federal fisheries officers there. It would be up to the provincial government to extend similar benefits to their fishermen.
[Later:!


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a further question. Does he consider that Ontario is not in Canada as far as the fisheries department is concerned?
[Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) .1


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, the government of Ontario themselves were the ones who requested that they administer their fisheries. Since they administer their fisheries we naturally expect them to offer their fishermen the benefits which are available to fishermen in the other provinces of Canada.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: May I
ask a supplementary question. Do I understand from the statement just made by the Minister of Fisheries that if the government of Ontario or of any other province which is administering its fisheries were to offer the services of their fisheries officials in the same manner that the federal fisheries inspectors are used, the fishermen in those provinces would not be eligible to be insured under the federal government plan?


James Sinclair: This insurance plan was
brought in four years ago because of the fact that the private insurance companies could not cover the hundreds of small fishing vessels scattered on both our coasts at a rate at which the fishermen could afford to purchase such insurance. We moved into the field not because we are socialists but because we can overcome this handicap inasmuch as we have federal fisheries officers in almost every fishing port of the areas we control. These men, in addition to their services as fisheries officers, can do the evaluating and assessing of damage to boats. Since we have no federal fisheries officers at the great lakes ports we are not able to offer that service to Ontario fishermen.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF NEW EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Are reports from Vancouver true, which are to the effect that Dillon O'Leary, a former member of the press gallery, is to be named to the post of executive assistant to the Minister of Fisheries in the near future?


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows well, I have an executive assistant who is doing an excellent job. His name is Hugh Alexander Munro.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is it true that the present executive assistant is being appointed on a permanent basis and would need to be replaced?


James Sinclair: My present executive assistant was appointed in the normal way by order in

council, which is the usual way of appointing an executive assistant. It is probably the type of order in council that even the Leader of the Opposition approves.


Frederick George Hahn: I am quite aware that the minister has an executive assistant at this time. The question I ask is, is it expected that Mr. O'Leary will replace the present executive assistant in the near future?


James Sinclair: I do not know how often one has to use simple English. I said I have an executive assistant who was appointed by order in council to be my executive assistant and that is what he is; that is the job he is discharging at the present time.


Frederick George Hahn: That does not answer the question, though.


James Sinclair: I will answer a simple question. I am not going to hire the hon. member for New Westminster as my executive assistant after his defeat on June 10. I shall repeat exactly the same answer I gave: that I am well pleased with the executive assistant I have, and have no intention of making an appointment to replace him after June 10.


Mr. Hansell:: You may not be here yourself after June 10.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question. If the present executive assistant is to be replaced I would like the minister to say yes or no.


James Sinclair: I have said I have appointed an executive assistant who is a permanent appointment, as permanent as executive assistants are. There is no intention to replace him, as I said, by the hon. member when he is looking for employment after June 10.



INQUIRY AS TO FINANCING OF WHEAT SALE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Yesterday the minister made the very welcome announcement that sales of wheat to Poland for delivery this year are going to be doubled. However, information from Winnipeg indicates that only about one-third of the 300,000 tons said to have been sold for delivery this year has actually been sold on account of difficulties with the banks.
Could the minister indicate whether the commitment he gave on March 27 to the hon. member for Assiniboia, that difficulties with regard to financing are not going to stand in the way of selling our wheat to Poland, still holds good?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member is using his position in parliament to obtain information for a small broker in the city of Winnipeg, and I object to giving that information, because I do not think that to do so would help the sale of Canadian wheat.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister stated yesterday that 300,000 tons had been sold, but according to the information I have, only one-third of that amount can be disposed of because the banks are asking 12 per cent interest for financing the sale, and the deal is not going through.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can say that the 300,000 tons of wheat have been purchased by Poland from the Canadian wheat board. More I do not wish to say.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Did the minister's statement a couple of days ago in Toronto that an announcement would soon be made about the development of Malton airport mean that the final agreement has been signed with the city of Toronto and, if so, when will major construction start?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add anything to what I said the other day in Toronto, that an announcement would be made shortly.


John Borden Hamilton: Surely the minister can tell us whether or not the actual agreement has been signed with the city.


George Carlyle Marler: If I had had notice of this question I could have made inquiries. The agreement with the city of Toronto has reached a point where, if it has not been signed, signature should not be very long delayed.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has any date been fixed for the conference of commonwealth prime ministers? I would also ask him to comment on a dispatch from London this morning to the effect that June 26 has been established tentatively as the

Inquiries of the Ministry date, but that the Canadian government wishes to secure a postponement until early in July.
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I did not see that dispatch. There was no suggestion that we would wish in any way to cause any obstacle to the holding of the meeting, and it was my understanding that it could not be later than June 26. Because the meeting will be held after the date when I hope the Canadian general election will have taken place, I think I spoke to the hon. gentleman and then answered that Canada would be represented even though the conference started on June 26. That was the date mentioned in the suggestion I received from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and it was my understanding that he was asking the prime ministers of the other commonwealth countries to meet in London for the opening of the conference on June 26. The last information I received was a few days ago, and up to that time only our own and two other definite acceptances had been made.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Lambton West asked a question concerning the servicing of diesel locomotives at Port Huron. I understand the expression "servicing" is generally used to describe the operations of providing fuel and water to a diesel locomotive.
I replied yesterday to the hon. gentleman's question regarding fueling, but with regard to the supplying of water I can only say that the management has explained that the range of a passenger diesel in contrast to a steam locomotive is much more closely related to weather conditions than to distance, and that the skipping of water stations during mild weather is common practice. During the winter months passenger diesels are expected to take on water at both Port Huron and London, but with the spring weather reducing requirements for heating the service at Port Huron is adequate for the run through to Toronto. If water is required it will be taken on at London.
May I add with regard to the watering that this means no lay-off of staff, and even if it were performed at Sarnia it would require no additional staff.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In last night's Telegram there is a Washington dispatch to the effect that the atomic energy commission in the United States announced that Russia had tested another nuclear weapon yesterday, somewhat larger than preceding ones in the current test series. Will the Prime Minister give consideration to inviting President Eisenhower, Prime Minister Macmillan and Mr. Bulganin to confer in Canada with a view to resolving the difference in views regarding the hazards to mankind of nuclear and allied radiation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will take the responsibility at this time of issuing that invitation.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he will be in a position to make any kind of statement regarding civil service salary increases before the session ends. I realize I asked a similar question a couple of days ago, and his answer was that he had to consult the civil service commission. I wonder if he can make any statement of any kind before we finish?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I doubt very much that I can. I have had a request from the civil service representatives to see me either Monday or Tuesday, and I do not think the civil service commission work will be completed by that time, though I am hopeful it will so we can discuss it with the representatives of the civil service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. If the government decides within the next month or two to make any increases, will it be possible to do so in the light of such money as will have been voted?


Walter Edward Harris: Normally, Mr. Speaker, there is a balance that can be drawn upon in the general salaries vote. That would not be sufficient for a retroactive increase in salary, and precisely how far it would go I am not sure. I shall have to look at that.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister bring the house up to date in connection with the further negotiations with the Saskatchewan government concerning the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project? Has the government given any consideration to the adoption in Saskatchewan of policies similar to those which have been announced for British Columbia and the maritimes, so that power will be made available through this instrumentality?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The situation in Saskatchewan could not be met by the policy that has been announced as a policy we would recommend for the maritimes and for British Columbia.
With respect to bringing the house up to date, I may say that the last letter I received from the premier of Saskatchewan was in response to a letter I had written to him about a newspaper report concerning a statement said to have been made by Mr. Fines about the contributions of the province of Saskatchewan to that scheme. In my letter I referred to two matters that were still undetermined so far as the government of Saskatchewan was concerned. One was the way in which a contribution of a certain percentage, amounting to practically $25 million, would be made.


John George Diefenbaker: By whom?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: By the
government of Saskatchewan. The other was with respect to the full cost of the penstocks required for power purposes. I added in my letter that the matter came up for discussion from time to time, and if there were that change in the attitude of the Saskatchewan government it would naturally be a factor that would enter into the discussions among ourselves about the project, and would be an indication of the importance the government of Saskatchewan attached to the project.
The reply was that, with respect to the method of payment of the contribution to the cost of the dam, the government of Saskatchewan would be prepared to meet whatever the conditions were, but still hoped that there might be some modification in lieu of a progress payment as payments had to be made.
With respect to the other matter, if they were to pay for the cost of the penstocks
Inquiries of the Ministry their engineers would want to study and possibly revise the plan to see if shorter penstocks could not be provided at a lesser cost than would be required to line the unwatering tunnel that the original plan indicated as one of the features of the construction. He expected that if and when we came to the conclusion that we were prepared to recommend to parliament an appropriation for the project, there would be no obstacle resulting from that portion of the arrangement that might have to be made.
There has been nothing further since then, beyond a request which came either yesterday or the day before for our acquiescence in a demand that had been made that the correspondence be tabled. Of course we immediately replied there was no objection to the correspondence being tabled in the legislature of Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the apparent reopening of negotiations, and the lengthy statement made by the Prime Minister-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not want that to be taken as the apparent reopening of negotiations. It was-


John George Diefenbaker: -the	interminable
continuance.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -the continuance of an exchange by correspondence or orally with respect to the project, but always on the basis that no decision had been arrived at that we would take the responsibility of recommending the project to parliament as one that would return to the economy more than it would require from the economy in interest and amortization charges.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Prime Minister in this position, after that lengthy exposition: that he is yet unconvinced that the project is economically feasible? Is that his position?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My position is that I have not yet been able to reach the conclusion that it is something which, constructed at this time, would return to the national economy more than it would require from the national economy in interest and amortization charges.


John George Diefenbaker: What evidence is the Prime Minister having collated or gathered to the end that the question as to the economic feasibility will be determined to his satisfaction? What is being done? Is any department of the P.F.R.A. or the P.F.A.A. investigating the matter? Are engineers' reports being secured, or is it just a continuance of the same exchange of correspondence which culminates in a meaningless dead end?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I do not know that it is a dead end. It is a project that involves very considerable expenditure and one which I do not think a government should recommend to parliament until it had been convinced that it was-and I repeat what I have said-a project that would return to the economy more than it would take out annually in interest and amortization charges. That is something it is very difficult to demonstrate mathematically because I feel there are indirect advantages which would be of economic value that could not be directly traced.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the Prime Minister have reference to?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would think it would create in that area a situation which would be apt to stimulate development from which there would then be economic advantages derived.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, do I conclude from the Prime Minister's answer to the Leader of the Opposition that even if these federally constructed roadblocks are removed, the best he could promise is that the government would give consideration rather than making a commitment, if an arrangement can be arrived at, that the federal government will permit itself to start the construction at any time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know to what the hon. member refers as roadblocks. I do not think there are any roadblocks. The whole matter depends on arriving at a conscientious decision that it is something that will add more to the national economy than it will take out in the annual carrying charges.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not aware that the government over the years has been setting up conditions which have always been met by the Saskatchewan government, with no results from the federal government?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker.



REFERENCE TO SOURCES OF LIBERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, as a result of some of his statements yesterday as well as today. Is the Prime Minister telling us that he assumes no responsibility whatsoever for the source of Liberal party campaign funds?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I assume no responsibility whatsoever for the source of what the hon. member is pleased to call Liberal party campaign funds. I have never attempted to secure any, and have no knowledge about the matter whatsoever.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 11, consideration in committee of the motion of Mr. Harris:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,651,674,050, being one-half of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $7,298,566.67, being one-third of the total of the amounts of items 52, 57, 116, 117, 131, 132, 156, 248, 281, 322, 324, 328, 355, 399 and 460 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $697,069.25, being one-quarter of the total of the amounts of items 153, 158, 252 and 397 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $3,640,012.17, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 16, 71, 134, 217, 218, 219, 227, 361, 364, 391, 422, 428 and 432 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $2,383,999.92, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 28, 69, 129, 221, 223, 224, 233, 234, 300, 321, 333 , 424 , 425 , 430 and 503 of the said estimates;
in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $9,635,679.50, being one-half of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $16,166.67, being one-third of the total of the amounts of items 626 and 654 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $208,333.34, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 621 and 640 of the said estimates;
and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $7,000,000, being two-sevenths of the total of the amount of item 663 set forth in the further supplementary estimates (1) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $30,555,555.56, being four-ninths of the total of the amounts of items 664, 665, 666, 667, 669 and 670 of the said estimates; and a sum of $1,000,000, being two-thirds of the total of the amount of item 668 of the said estimates, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1958.
['the third reading of the bill.\nMotion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.', '\nThe house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
commence by saying to the Prime Minister that he cannot slough off questions based upon facts by objecting to what those facts may seem to imply. He cannot avoid questions by alleging that those who are asking such questions are conveying insinuations. I refer, of course, to the answer the Prime Minister gave to my question on the orders of the day this morning. He knows that the questions which I have asked this week in

this field have been based upon facts, even if at the time I asked them he was not aware of some of those facts.
At the beginning of the week it appears that the Prime Minister did not know that Mr. Barrington was a full-time salaried employee as head of the government-owned Polymer Corporation Limited. Later he learned from his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce that Mr. Barrington is on salary and does get quite a good salary as the full-time head of that corporation.
The Prime Minister did not know at the beginning of the week that Mr. Barrington had been made a director of Mclntyre-Porcu-pine Mines Limited. I gather he did not know either that there had been consultation between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and someone connected with Mc-Intyre-Porcupine Mines Limited concerning Mr. Barrington's appointment as a director of that private company. I hope he now knows about those consultations; I hope he now knows whether it was a case of Mr. Tory or Mr. Hewett of Mclntyre-Porcupine discussing the matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce or vice versa.
Earlier in the week the Prime Minister did not know that Mr. W. J. Bennett, the salaried head of three crown corporations, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, and Northern Transportation Limited, was also a director of Investors Mutual of Canada Limited. By yesterday he had ascertained that that was a fact, although he was able to report from Mr. Bennett that on March 1 Mr. Bennett gave notice of his desire to be relieved of his duties as a director of Investors Mutual of Canada Limited. Action has not yet been taken on Mr. Bennett's resignation by the board of this investment house, so that at this moment he is still the salaried head of three crown corporations and at the same time a director of an investment firm.
I hold in my hand a copy of the 1956 annual report of Investors Mutual of Canada Limited, and I find on page 1 of this report a list of the directors. The third one-as a matter of fact he is the first one to be listed after the chairman and president-I am sorry; that may have no particular significance, because I see that they are in alphabetical order. The entry reads: "W. J. Bennett, president, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and president and managing director, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited."
That, incidentally, answers the question asked the other day by the Minister of National Revenue as to whether it was the same Mr. W. J. Bennett I was talking about. It is quite clear that Mr. Bennett was during
Interim Supply
1956 and still is, until his resignation is accepted, a director of this particular investment house.
I would draw attention to the fact that despite Mr. Bennett's statement, which we must accept, that he was not consulted regarding the purchase of uranium stocks, it is still a fact that this company of which Mr. Bennett is a director does hold investments in companies engaged in the mining of uranium. On page 19 I find in the list of common stocks held by Investors Mutual of Canada Limited the names of a number of companies that are engaged in the mining of uranium:	Consolidated Denison Mines
Limited, Faraday Uranium Mines Limited and Gunnar Mines Limited. There may be one or two others in the list that I do not recognize as being engaged in uranium.
On page 24 of this same report under the heading "Bonds held by the Investors Mutual of Canada Limited," I find reference to Algom Uranium Mines Limited, Can-Met Explorations Limited, Consolidated Denison Mines Limited, Faraday Uranium Mines Limited and Lorado Uranium Mines Limited. t Now, Mr. Chairman, I have mentioned these matters to point out that the questions I have been asking this week are based on facts that the Prime Minister in due course has had to admit are correct. If he does not like the implications that flow from my bringing these facts out in the House of Commons he does not get anywhere by referring to these clear implications as insinuations which any particular member is trying to make.
I now move on to the question I asked this morning and to all that is involved in the situation with which we are now confronted. According to a story which first appeared in yesterday morning's Toronto Telegram, as I indicated on the orders of the day yesterday, and also according to this morning's Globe and Mail, it does appear that there is to be a rather gigantic deal involving the purchase of control of Al-goma Steel by a group of three companies. These three companies are A. V. Roe Canada Limited, Mclntyre-Porcupine Mines Limited and Mannesmann Tube Company of Sault Ste. Marie in which Algoma is associated with Mannesmann A. G. of Dussel-dorf, Germany in the manufacture of seamless steel pipe.
I have no information about the last of these companies, but I do wish to set clearly on the record certain facts in relation to Algoma Steel on the one hand and A. V. Roe and Mclntyre-Porcupine Mines Limited on the other, and I am going right ahead even if the Prime Minister wants to say that in so doing I am casting insinuations.

Interim Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, does it matter to my hon. friend whether or not the press reports on which he is basing his argument are correct?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does my hon. friend deny the press reports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just ask whether the hon. member knows whether or not they are correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce deny there were negotiations between Algoma Steel on the one hand and these three companies on the other?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I deny the substance of the press report because I happen to know it is not correct, but the information came from a confidential source and I cannot repeat it in the house. My hon. friend is doing exactly the same as was the hon. member for Mackenzie. There are a great many brokers who would like to know whether these rumours are true. My hon. friend parades them in the house in the hope that someone will either confirm or deny them. That may be a proper way of using the position of a member of this House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, Mr. Chairman; I believe I have the floor. The minister can speak afterwards, and I hope he will do so and I also hope that the Prime Minister will speak on this matter. I come back to certain facts that have been clearly established. I refer in particular to the fact-


The Chairman:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member will help me in this respect. I believe he was relevant and in order when he was discussing a matter which related to Atomic Energy Limited, because I would presume that there would be an item in the estimates dealing with atomic energy. However, I am a little at sea at the present time to know how the hon. member justifies a speech on interim supply which, as far as I can see at present, involves a transaction between two companies which are not crown companies. It appears to me that he is now wandering somewhat from relevancy in a debate of this kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, you recognize of course that we are discussing a resolution that involves bringing down a portion of every item of the estimates that are before us either in the blue book or in the supple-mentaries, and those estimates include the estimates of the Department of Defence Production, which has contracts with A. V. Hoe.


William Alfred Robinson: That is the point I was trying to make. I have not examined the entire estimates, but I presume there are items in the estimates with regard to the atomic energy program. I do not know whether there is anything in the estimates to which the hon. member could draw my attention which would enable him to discuss what would appear at the present moment to be a transaction between two private companies. However, as I have said, I have not been able to examine every item in the estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Interim Supply
question I asked yesterday to which my friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam referred this morning, namely as to whether or not there are any contributions to party funds coming from the huge companies involved in transactions of this kind, companies making money as a result of the assistance of government contracts, government subsidies or government connections of one kind or another.
I confess that yesterday, when the Prime Minister took that high and lofty attitude of being completely removed from the question of party funds, and when he took the same position this morning, I was reminded of the words I read long ago used by Mr. King at the end of a long speech he made on the Beauharnois investigation back in 1931. He was dealing with the question of whether or not he knew what was going on in terms of the contributions that had been made to the Liberal party at that time. He said, as recorded on page 4387 of Hansard on July 30, 1931:
I think I have answered that last question. I may be wrong in my answer. The country will have to judge, and this house will have to judge, but my answer is this, and it will continue to be this as long as I have to do with the Liberal party:	I simply cannot undertake to assume
responsibility tor the organization of political campaigns and1 to pretend to have a knowledge of who are making contributions to them.
The Prime Minister yesterday and today took the same position taken by Mr. King back in 1931 when he was referring what happened in connection with the Beauharnois scandal so far as contributions to party funds were concerned; but that same Mr. King, who took that lofty position up in the clouds and far removed from this mundane matter of party funds, said on the same page in another column:
I tell the people of this country today that as its leader I feel humiliated, and I know my following feel humiliated. I have told them so in caucus, that we are in the valley of humiliation.
I warn the Liberal party that if its members are not prepared to have an investigation by a committee of the House of Commons into these matters they had better have their own investigation, or they may find themselves once again in the valley of humiliation.
I insist, Mr. Chairman, that before this session ends we should have a clear statement as to the part played by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in all these matters, through the fact that Mr. Barrington has become a director of Mclntyre-Porcupine Limited, through the fact that Mr. Bennett has been a director of Investors Mutual, and now through these reports of the deal which is going to take place between Algoma Steel on the one hand, with which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is connected as an

executor of the Dunn estate, and these other firms, including A. V. Roe on the other hand, with which the minister is also connected.
This is extremely serious, and some inquiry should be made as to whether party funds are coming from any of these companies which are receiving government assistance in various ways. If so, we should know about it; and the Liberals, if they do not already know what is happening, should find out before they find themselves again in the valley of humiliation.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, like other hon. members of the house I am somewhat surprised that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has not risen to deal with the questions just raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, it may be he will do so later in the course of the present debate.
I have three questions I would like to place before the committee today because I think they are of such importance that they should not be ignored. The first arises out of the procedure the government is following to effect what might be described as temporary amendments to legislation. Hon. members will realize that we are being asked under this motion to vote six months supply with certain variations. That means six months of the votes contained in the ordinary estimates and the supplementary estimates. But, in addition to that, we are asked to vote a portion of the funds provided in certain further supplementary estimates, and they are worded in such a way as, in effect, to amend certain statutes.
This, I need hardly point out, is a very unusual way to amend statutes, a way which, I submit, should only be used on very rare occasions and in very special circumstances. But in this particular case this method is used in what can only be described as a rather bare-faced attempt to by-pass the regular procedure of parliament.
Let me illustrate this contention by referring to the particular items contained in these further supplementary estimates which amend, on a temporary basis, veterans legislation. The government is being very cunning about this procedure, or at least it thinks it is being cunning, though I am not so sure to what extent it will be able to fool the people. There has been no veterans legislation brought down this session, though the government knew at least a month ago when the budget speech was made that there were to be these changes in the provisions for veterans. I believe the government knew right from the beginning of the session in January what it proposed to do with regard to changes in veterans legislation, but rather

than follow the straightforward course of bringing in legislation it resorted to this back-door method of tabling further supplementary estimates in the last few days of the session when there is no practical way of debating the items. All we can debate is a general, over-all measure to provide for six months' supply covering all the items in all the different estimates which have been brought down.
Ordinarily, ever since I first had the privilege of representing a riding in this house some 21 years ago, veterans legislation has been brought down by statute, debated in the house and then referred to a special committee for the most thorough and painstaking consideration. That course was followed because members of those other parliaments believed that Canada was under a great obligation to war veterans and that their problems should be dealt with in this manner. Senator Power, whose son I am glad to see in the house today, was one of the key men in insisting that procedure of that sort should be followed where veterans legislation was concerned. Before that special committee officials of the Canadian Legion and of the national council of veterans appeared from time to time to make their presentations in a statesmanlike way, and all this invariably had a great deal to do with the legislation which finally became law. But all that procedure, set up so carefully and followed so conscientiously during the years, is now thrown aside, and amendments to veterans legislation are made by means of these further supplementary estimates.
The sad part of this development, Mr. Chairman, is that many different amendments were required this session in veterans legislation which now cannot be dealt with. This means that veterans and their dependents will have to suffer unnecessarily until a new parliament can meet to deal with these pressing problems. Let us take, for example, amendments to the Pension Act. The Legion asked that the increases should be 33J per cent. The supplementary estimates provide for increases of a much smaller amount.
Then the Legion has asked that a provision be written into the Pension Act to the effect that when a disability is not recorded on enlistment, after the doctors have made a thorough examination of an applicant, it should be presumed that any disability which may arise subsequently during service has been caused by service and is not of pre-enlistment origin. A change of this kind would affect many veterans in Canada.
Another pension change considered necessary is the removal of the deadline in
Interim Supply
respect of marriages. As the legislation now stands, if a veteran of the first war married after May 1, 1954, his wife is not eligible for any payment.
That deadline should have been wiped out this year.
So far as war veterans allowances are concerned, some increases have been made of which we all approve, but the needs have not been faced as they should have been. The ceilings on permissive income have been increased somewhat, but when the new parliament meets they will have to be raised to such an extent that when a recipient reaches 70 years of age he will get his full old age security payment without any reduction in his war veterans allowance. At the present time, even with the new ceilings established by the further supplementary estimates, when these front line veterans, both single and married, reach 70 years of age they will not get the full benefit of the old age security payments. That is something that should have been remedied long ago, and certainly there was not the slightest excuse for not dealing with the matter during the present session.
There must also be a change in the amount a veteran can have by way of an interest in his home without losing his eligibility for a full allowance. Values of homes have been going up all over the country. At the present time I think the figure allowed is $6,000. That too should have been increased at the present session. There has been no increase whatever in the war veterans allowance for the single veteran or for the widow. They have been left just as they were before.
I can only regret that under the method now being followed the problems of these veterans are being shoved aside, and I can certainly promise that should we be responsible for forming a government after the election veterans legislation generally will be thoroughly reviewed, there will be a standing committee of the house to deal with these questions, and also a full-time minister. We are still in the position of having one minister handling the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Post Office Department. In other words the Department of Veterans Affairs has only a half-time minister. That has been the situation for about a year and a half, and it is a clear indication of the slight appreciation the government has had of the problems facing Canada's veterans.


Mr. Winters:: He is a very high-class minister.


An hon. Member:: A superman.

Interim Supply


Howard Charles Green: He must be considered a superman twice as good as any other minister in the government.


Robert Henry Winters: He is very good.


Howard Charles Green: Even that might not be so very good. Even if he is, he should not be given the responsibility of dealing with these two important departments.
The second question I wish to draw to the attention of the house today has to do with the announcement of policy made some days ago concerning power developments on the Columbia river. There was one amazing feature about the announcement. It was not made in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. I do not know whether the minister forgot about it or did not know about it, or whether-


Walter Edward Harris: What is that?


Howard Charles Green: I am referring to the government's announcement concerning the development of power on the Columbia river. I suspect that the minister left it out as a tidbit for the Minister of Fisheries to use in an attempt to be re-elected. I do not quarrel with the Minister of Fisheries for wishing to have anything of this kind he could get to help in his re-election, but the unfortunate result of that course being followed was this. The Columbia river development can only be carried out adequately with the closest co-operation between the dominion and the provincial governments.
I need not labour that point because surely it is obvious to everyone in the house. There has been quite bad feeling between the premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Fisheries for some months. They have been sparring at a distance quite energetically and quite effectively and, I think, for the edification of all the people of British Columbia. We have all enjoyed it. But the federal government took the course of sending the Minister of Fisheries to British Columbia to make the announcement in what quite obviously was an attempt to put the premier of British Columbia on the spot.


Walter Edward Harris: That is not so.


Howard Charles Green: That is just going to make it a good deal more difficult for the two governments to get together. I am afraid that we on the west coast are going to have to pay for the antagonistic and pugnacious atmosphere which has been created. I am not accusing or blaming individuals, but there is the result. The announcement should have been made in the house in the ordinary way, just as the announcement was made about the program for the maritimes.

One other feature of the announcement was that it contained quite a large "if". The portion to which I refer is found at page 2684 of Hansard of March 26 and is in these words:
It, after international agreement has been reached, the provincial government should decide on public development of this great power potential and need assistance in financing, the federal government will be prepared to assist . . .
I cannot understand why the federal government put in that proviso. This policy should not be subject to prior agreement between Canada and the United States. The negotiations are to start next month. They may take months or they may take years. There is very little connection between the negotiations and a policy of co-operation between the two governments for the development of the power.
I should like to point out that we advocated a policy on this question on February 20 last year, as found at page 1346 of Hansard, in an amendment to the motion for committee of supply. It was in these words:
In the opinion of this house consideration should be given to a joint investment program for the development of power resources in any province where the government of such province requests the co-operation of the Canadian government in carrying out such development.
That amendment expressed the policy of our party respecting the development of such schemes not only in British Columbia but also in the maritimes and Saskatchewan. The amendment was, of course, opposed by all the Liberals, including all those from British Columbia who were present at the time. So there may be absolutely no mistake about where we stand on this question, may I point out that this policy was extended somewhat at the national convention last December to include not only the development of power but all other self-liquidating projects. We stand for these joint developments, and we do not make them subject to ifs and buts such as are contained in the policy announced by the Minister of Fisheries a few days ago.
Then a final question I should like to place before the house before prorogation, in a very limited way because of the short time available to any of us, is the need for a Canadian policy on the development of a Canadian deep sea cargo fleet. We will excuse the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because I realize it is not his fault there is not a Canadian deep sea fleet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy.


Howard Charles Green: Here, I think, is the most clear-cut, definite failure of this government during its term of office. For the life of me 1 cannot see why they refuse to act to remedy this

situation. The only explanation seems to be that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of Defence Production and all points east and west, does not want it. I suspect he is the man who is stopping action. Down through the years I have been pointing out the gravity of the situation. I think the need for action is realized from coast to coast. We have practically no deep sea fleet left at the present time operating under the Canadian flag with Canadian seamen. The last Canadian vessel to leave the port of Vancouver transferred to British registry just about two years ago. The number of our merchant seamen has fallen from 5,000 in 1948 to less than 500 at the present time. Practically half of our remaining cargo vessels are now under Canadian National Steamships.
The other day when we were discussing Suez it was interesting to have the Prime Minister explain there has not been a Canadian ship go through the Suez canal in recent months. I do not believe there will ever be another one go through that canal unless some steps are taken by the new parliament. Practically every other country in the world has adopted a policy of building up a substantial merchant marine. It is true that Canada has some old cargo vessels under British registry and manned by British seamen. The only way they are Canadian is that the Canadian companies pay income tax to the Canadian government. A year ago there were 99 such vessels, but now I believe that number has been reduced and by the fall it will be down to about 50 or 60. If new vessels are built to replace those old ones on British registry, the new ones likewise will come under British registry. These ships are under the control of the United Kingdom. Canada has no control over them, as witness the fact that many of them were requisitioned during the Suez crisis by the British government and ordered to convey cargoes to that area.
The feature of this situation which should appeal to the largest group in the house, namely the members from Ontario, is what is happening in the St. Lawrence-great lakes area. There is not a Canadian deep sea cargo vessel operating through those canals today. There is not a United States vessel. All this carrying is being done by foreign vessels, and incidentally not very many of them are under British registry. Other nations have been making preparations for years for the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. I have here a press dispatch from the Gazette dated April 8. It is headed, "Two More of Van Oranje Type". It reads:
Two new ships of the Prins Willem Van Oranje type will be put into service with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway two years hence spokesmen for the owners said, during the week end.
Interim Supply
The vessels will carry up to 100 passengers in outside cabins with deluxe accommodations. They will be of 8,000 tons gross, compared to the Prins Willem Van Oranje's 7,400 tons. The latter ship carried 60 passengers.
The Van Oranje, among the most popular vessels calling at Montreal, was put into service about three years ago and as flagship of the Oranje line was designed as an experimental ship with the seaway trade in the back of her owner's mind.
The new ships will link Chicago and other ports on the great lakes with ports in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands.
The United States have moved to meet this situation. They have declared the route from the great lakes to northern European countries essential and thereby made subsidies available to United States shipping lines which wish to ply that route. They are now moving to make essential also the route from the great lakes to the Caribbean.
The Canadian government has done nothing. The Minister of Transport promised last year that this year there would be changes to help shipbuilding in Canada, but even those changes are not to go through. When the St. Lawrence seaway is opened Canada will find herself in a position where all her goods will be carried to and from ports on the great lakes in ships belonging to other countries.
One other reason that we must have a deep sea fleet is contained in an article by Major General W. H. S. Macklin in Maclean's magazine for March 30, 1957. I merely read the heading, because we all know that it is right:
Major-General W. H. S. Macklin says we can't fight without a merchant navy. We had to disgrace the Magnificent to get troops to Suez. We're wasting billions on defence, he says, if we ignore the fleet we need to transport our army.
We are coming to a time when atomic energy will be used to power merchant vessels. Canada is making no move whatever to be ready for that time. Here again the government has no policy whatever. The government must admit to a complete failure to deal with this problem during this parliament. I point out that we have a very definite policy on this question, too, contained in a resolution passed at the Conservative convention which reads as follows:
We regret that the present government has allowed the Canadian deep sea fleet to disintegrate and we believe steps should be taken to foster the development and encourage the maintenance of at least a nucleus of modern deep sea cargo vessels, owned and manned by Canadian citizens and operated under Canadian registry.
Even though it requires a subsidy to establish a fleet of that type, it should be done. Other countries have had to adopt policies of a similar nature, and we believe Canada must do so and should have done so a long time ago.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I promise the committee that I shall not repeat anything

Interim Supply
I have said on previous occasions in this debate, but I do want to comment on some of the complaints that have been made by hon. gentlemen with respect to the procedure being adopted, and also with respect to some of the items in the supplementary estimates.
The procedure that is being adopted has been referred to as an unusual, back-door method, with other epithets of one kind or another. The plain fact of the matter is that the procedure being adopted was the only possible procedure to bring about the benefits that we are proposing to parliament ought to be granted to the Canadian people and at the same time permit what I think has been understood to have been the plans of the government, and indeed the requests of opposition parties, that we should dissolve about this time for the purpose of holding a general election.
Now, the procedure is quite simple. It is not only simple, it has been approved by practice in the past; and despite all the authorities that might be cited by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, and more recently by my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra, as to there being something unusual about it, on the contrary it has been customary on occasions for governments to adopt this method when in fact there is no time in the schedule of business to achieve the results desired by the ordinary method of presenting and passing bills through the house to amend the respective statutes.
No longer ago than 1949 we did the same thing in the House of Commons that we are now proposing today. On that occasion everyone knew we were going to hold a general election in June, and as the time for dissolution approached supplementary estimates were presented which in effect did amend statutes and provided for the payment of moneys pursuant to those statutes during the period of the general election and the time necessary to reconvene parliament no matter what the outcome of the election should be. We did not, as my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra has said, have a settled policy on this, at least, on the opening of parliament.
I do not think I need to excuse the government for not having done so. A great many considerations entered into our thoughts during the past two months as to what ought to be done. Not the least of these was fairly accurate knowledge of what the financial position of the government of Canada might be in the next twelve months, and that was not forecast with any degree of accuracy until early in March.
Let me deal specifically with the proposals we have with respect to veterans legislation,

about which some reference has been made by the hon. member for Calgary North, I think it was, and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
It is true that since the end of world war II we have had in almost every case, unless it was a very minor matter, a committee study all recommendations to amend veterans legislation. I think it has been a salutary way of dealing with these questions, and I for one agree that it ought to be followed where it is suitable and the time is available. I have no doubt whatever that before very long a committee will be constituted for the purpose of looking over the statutes again to bring them more into conformity with various amendments which may have been made over the last few years, and perhaps as a guide to future policy.


Mr. Churchill:: There has not been a general review. That is the difference. It was set up to deal with specific amendments.


Walter Edward Harris: That is quite true; but there was a very general review which led to the so-called veterans charter of, I think, 1947 or 1948, and a complete review would not have been justified until at least recently because there has to be some uniformity about it, and time has to go by before you need a revision of all the statutes concerned. That time only arrives when you may find, by reason of various changes here and there, that the whole pattern is thrown out of balance and you have to go over it and revise it generally. As I said, I do not think there is any doubt that that time has about arrived, and this may very well occur in the near future.
On the subject of veterans benefits themselves, I was interested in the month of December to read in the press a report about a Conservative convention which was being held in the city of Ottawa. On Wednesday, December 12, the Ottawa Journal made this reference to resolutions which were then before the convention of that party. By a hurried reading of this the only reference I saw was mentioned as No. 2, which reads:
Jumping war veteran disability pensions by 10 per cent.
This was a preliminary resolution of the resolutions committee. I am informed that in the main body of the convention this resolution was changed, if it was in that form, when it was properly reported. I have been told that what I am about to read was the resolution on veterans:
The Progressive Conservative party has consistently championed the cause of Canada's veterans. A Progressive Conservative government will:
1.	Set up a standing committee of the House of Commons on veterans affairs.

2.	Raise veterans' disability pensions in order to bring them more in line with the increased cost of living in Canada today.
3.	Increase the married rate of war veterans' allowances and increase the ceilings on total permissible incomes.
4.	Extend the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act to veterans who served in the United Kingdom during the first world war.
I do not know whether this was the final version, but I have been told that it was. May I just compare this with what has been done since and with what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite. First of all, let us dispose of Nos. 1 and 4. We have not so far found it possible to set up a standing committee. It is a matter which does not weigh in the balance if a committee in fact considers legislation from time to time. Nor have we found it possible to extend the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act to veterans who served in the United Kingdom during the first world war.
Nos. 2 and 3, however, refer to raising veterans disability pensions in order to bring them more in line with the increased cost of living in Canada today. Very wisely they did not try to determine what that increase would amount to. Had they done so-and I think they were aware of it-they would not have found it possible, if they were consistent in their program, to support the present amendments, because they are above the increases in the cost of living during the time since they were last changed. Now, if my hon. friends opposite-


Howard Charles Green: That does not apply to many of the increases contained in this vote.


Walter Edward Harris: I think I can go through these and show that it applies to nearly all of them, and I am just going to take about two minutes to do so. Single pensioner, 100 per cent disability, increased 20 per cent; married pensioner, 100 per cent disability, increased 20 per cent; pensioned veteran, increased 15 per cent; dependent parent, maximum award, 20 per cent; two dependent parents, maximum award, 15 per cent. In no case, Mr. Chairman, that I have been able to find in just a quick assessment are those increases less than the increase in the cost of living in the time that has elapsed since the last change, and in most cases they greatly exceed the increase in the cost of living since then.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not realize that when the pensions were increased previously they were not increased as they should have been to keep up with the increase in the cost of living?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, I would think that-


Howard Charles Green: That undercuts your whole
argument.
Interim Supply


Walter Edward Harris: I would have thought that was about the weakest argument that could be advanced, because if the Conservative party meeting in December had not been able to decide its course of action, based on what the conditions were on that date, I am afraid they are just following the usual practice of living in the past and not considering the present.
The third resolution reads:
Increase the married rate of war veterans' allowances and Increase the ceilings on total permissible incomes.
We have increased the ceilings on total permissible income, and in the two speeches that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite I have not heard them say that the increase was not a proper one.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the minister is not repeating what I said at all. I said they should be increased so the veteran would get the full benefit of his old age security payment when he reached 70 years of age. I repeated that several times, and have said that time and time again in this house over the years.


Walter Edward Harris: Subject to that amendment,
which I did not hear in the last 30 minutes, may I point out that the remainder of the resolution reads:
Increase the married rate of war veterans' allowances.
Well, now, instead of increasing the married rate of war veterans allowances, sir, we now hear a request for an increase for the single veteran under the war veterans allowance. I take it that this is an extension which has been thought up by hon. gentlemen opposite since the budget speech of March 14, when we did in fact increase the married rate for war veterans allowances.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detain the committee any longer on the matter of veterans legislation. May I point out that the proposed increases which were detailed the other day-I am not going to use the word generous again, because in dealing with veterans affairs one does not do so with generosity, one deals with what is considered to be proper by way of compensation for distinguished service to the country under conditions of great difficulty and suffering, physical disability and the like- what I am saying is that I rather think the proposals the government made are highly pleasing to the representatives of Canadian veterans, and took by surprise the opposition who did not expect we would do this at this particular time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there are three matters with which I would like to deal

Interim. Supply
briefly while I have the opportunity of bringing them to the attention of parliament, and I hope they will receive some consideration by the government in the interval before the new parliament assembles. The first of these has to do with a matter of policy presently being followed by the air transport board. I think I can best explain the situation by referring to some correspondence I have received from the parent-teacher association of Tahsis on Vancouver island. In a letter written by the secretary under date of October 16, 1956, addressed to the Minister of Transport and dealing with the subject of air line fares for students, the association says:
From necessity there are a number of students attending schools away from Tahsis.
We have one means of transportation, the Pacific Western Airlines, and they give us very adequate service, but the fare over twelve years is $66 return.
They go on to explain that there is a weekly freight boat, and say that if students were to travel by boat and could not be out of school on a certain day they would have to wait a week for the next boat. The letter continues:
The Pacific Western Airlines are quite ready to discuss the situation and realize the hardship of three annual fares being paid by parents if they wish to see their children for vacations.
We request a reduction in air line fares for students attending school. Your acknowledgement and advice will be appreciated.
As might be expected, this letter addressed to the Minister of Transport was handed over to the air transport board, which replied to the parent-teacher association under date of November 9, 1956, in a letter addressed to the secretary in which they said:
Your letter of October 16th, 1956 addressed to the Minister of Transport on the above subject has been considered by the board.
The situation is that under the provisions of the Aeronautics Act, it is, in the first instance, solely within the discretion of air carriers whether or not they will grant reduced fares and the authority of the board is limited to approving or disapproving what air carriers may, themselves, propose. The board has no authority to direct an air carrier to extend assistance of the above kind to any person or class of persons nor can it properly initiate the establishment of reduced fare arrangements.
That is in line with my understanding of the manner in which the air transport board must act under the present statute, but the last paragraph of this letter is the one to which I particularly want to draw attention. It says:
The board understands the views you have expressed in support of the granting of reduced rate transportation for students attending schools away from Tahsis. It would, however, have to refuse a request of this nature if submitted by an air carrier in view of the precedent it would establish.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the particular point to which I wish to draw the attention of the committee. I fail to understand how, if the application of an air carrier to the board would create a precedent, it would constitute a valid reason for the board taking a position in advance of an application. That point of view is one which also caused considerable surprise to the parents of the community of Tahsis. In a rather forthright reply addressed to the secretary of the air transport board under date of December 10, 1956 the parent-teacher association said:
We have your letter explaining procedure to be followed in making a request for a fare reduction and your comments that such a reduction would not be granted because it would establish a precedent.
We wish to state that we cannot accept your explanation that a student fare rate cannot be granted because it would establish a precedent. To us, any alteration of set fare structure is a precedent.
That last sentence appeals to me as being a logical way of expressing the situation. The letter continues:
We understand there are special rates on trains for certain classes of travellers. Air lines have family rate plans in effect . . .
They also adhere to board of transport rulings. When such a plan benefits both transportation company and traveller, it is justified.
The letter then goes on to explain some details of the situation that apply, and outlines a plan under which the air line in question would be able to bring students home on flights that would be filled on the trip out by workers leaving the community on holidays.
I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the committee at this time in the hope that in the immediate future some very careful study and review will be given to this policy now being followed by the air transport board, as described in this letter.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
['Mr. Chairman, there are three matters with which I would like to deal', "Interim. Supply\nbriefly while I have the opportunity of bringing them to the attention of parliament, and I hope they will receive some consideration by the government in the interval before the new parliament assembles. The first of these has to do with a matter of policy presently being followed by the air transport board. I think I can best explain the situation by referring to some correspondence I have received from the parent-teacher association of Tahsis on Vancouver island. In a letter written by the secretary under date of October 16, 1956, addressed to the Minister of Transport and dealing with the subject of air line fares for students, the association says:\nFrom necessity there are a number of students attending schools away from Tahsis.\nWe have one means of transportation, the Pacific Western Airlines, and they give us very adequate service, but the fare over twelve years is $66 return.\nThey go on to explain that there is a weekly freight boat, and say that if students were to travel by boat and could not be out of school on a certain day they would have to wait a week for the next boat. The letter continues:\nThe Pacific Western Airlines are quite ready to discuss the situation and realize the hardship of three annual fares being paid by parents if they wish to see their children for vacations.\nWe request a reduction in air line fares for students attending school. Your acknowledgement and advice will be appreciated.\nAs might be expected, this letter addressed to the Minister of Transport was handed over to the air transport board, which replied to the parent-teacher association under date of November 9, 1956, in a letter addressed to the secretary in which they said:\nYour letter of October 16th, 1956 addressed to the Minister of Transport on the above subject has been considered by the board.\nThe situation is that under the provisions of the Aeronautics Act, it is, in the first instance, solely within the discretion of air carriers whether or not they will grant reduced fares and the authority of the board is limited to approving or disapproving what air carriers may, themselves, propose. The board has no authority to direct an air carrier to extend assistance of the above kind to any person or class of persons nor can it properly initiate the establishment of reduced fare arrangements.\nThat is in line with my understanding of the manner in which the air transport board must act under the present statute, but the last paragraph of this letter is the one to which I particularly want to draw attention. It says:\nThe board understands the views you have expressed in support of the granting of reduced rate transportation for students attending schools away from Tahsis. It would, however, have to refuse a request of this nature if submitted by an air carrier in view of the precedent it would establish.\n\nThat, Mr. Chairman, is the particular point to which I wish to draw the attention of the committee. I fail to understand how, if the application of an air carrier to the board would create a precedent, it would constitute a valid reason for the board taking a position in advance of an application. That point of view is one which also caused considerable surprise to the parents of the community of Tahsis. In a rather forthright reply addressed to the secretary of the air transport board under date of December 10, 1956 the parent-teacher association said:\nWe have your letter explaining procedure to be followed in making a request for a fare reduction and your comments that such a reduction would not be granted because it would establish a precedent.\nWe wish to state that we cannot accept your explanation that a student fare rate cannot be granted because it would establish a precedent. To us, any alteration of set fare structure is a precedent.\nThat last sentence appeals to me as being a logical way of expressing the situation. The letter continues:\nWe understand there are special rates on trains for certain classes of travellers. Air lines have family rate plans in effect . . .\nThey also adhere to board of transport rulings. When such a plan benefits both transportation company and traveller, it is justified.\nThe letter then goes on to explain some details of the situation that apply, and outlines a plan under which the air line in question would be able to bring students home on flights that would be filled on the trip out by workers leaving the community on holidays.\nI wish to bring this matter to the attention of the committee at this time in the hope that in the immediate future some very careful study and review will be given to this policy now being followed by the air transport board, as described in this letter.\nMay I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?\nAt one o'clock the committee took recess."]
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it has been agreed that we shall take the tax convention bills and from time to time return to this debate.
Progress reported.



James Joseph McCann: the second reading of Bill No. 413, to implement an agreement between

Canada and the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the minister would make a statement on this bill, either in committee or in the house, whichever is convenient. Perhaps it would be better in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
James Joseph McCann: The purpose of this bill is to give legal effect in Canada to an agreement which, as a result of negotiations and subsequent exchanges, has been reached between the government of Canada and the government of the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation and the establishment of rules for reciprocal fiscal assistance in the matter of income taxes, which agreement was signed at Ottawa on April 2, 1957. The agreement follows the pattern established in the present income tax agreements which Canada has made with the United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, France and the Federal Republic of Germany, and has as its purpose the avoidance of double taxation and the exchange of information.
Double taxation is avoided chiefly by a reciprocal system of tax credits in which the country of residence gives credit for the tax imposed by the country on the income at its source. The agreement contains the usual provisions limiting the taxation of trading profits through the permanent establishment rule. In addition certain special provisions are made; profits from the operation of ships and aircraft will be taxed solely in the country of the residence of the operator.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the schedule which is attached to the bill has certain articles, and I suggest that probably after we have taken up clause 1 we can go to clause 2, then deal with the different articles in the schedule and then come back to clause 3.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the desire of the committee that we now consider the schedule? Does the minister wish me to call articles by number for discussion purposes only?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
On the schedule, Article I;


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could I ask the minister
if he would say a word first of all with respect to the clauses of the bill which I think
Income Tax Agreement are not identical, certainly, with the last tax agreement, entered into last year with Denmark. Would the minister say generally with regard to the agreement in the schedule whether it follows substantially the same lines or whether there is any material difference. I might say that on making a comparison one is not able to identify them, clause by clause or word by word, but I thought the officials would be able to tell us whether there is any general substantial difference.


James Joseph McCann: No, Mr. Chairman, there
is no substantial difference between this and the former agreement. I might say with respect to article I that this article contains specific reference to its respective taxes to which the agreement applies. That means that some taxes in the Netherlands are not named in the same way as ours in Canada. For instance, it applies to the income tax including surtaxes in Canada, while in the Netherlands it applies to taxes and what are called wages tax, company tax, dividend tax and tax on fees of directors, all of which correspond very closely to income taxes in Canada. It also provides that the agreement will apply to any substantially similar taxes which may be imposed by either government during the time the agreement is in force.
Article I agreed to.
On the schedule, Article II.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask a question
under article II, and the minister has partially answered this already. He has read out a list of taxes which indicates that in the Netherlands the approach to tax on income is broken down in a way different from the way it is done in Canada. My question is this. Have we been satisfied first of all that there is an absolute parallel between this list of taxes and our own? Do they cover exactly the same ground as our differently named taxes, and was it possible to arrive at complete agreement in this respect? I understand that in one or two cases agreement on the question of situs posed some difficulties, and they were more or less left in the air because agreement could not be reached. Can we take it that our experts are satisfied that these taxes in the Netherlands on the one hand and in Canada on the other cover the same ground?


James Joseph McCann: That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.
Article II agreed to.
On the schedule, Article III.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On article III I would
like to put a question to the minister. I do not think a similar article is included in

Income Tax Agreement the Denmark agreement, or if it is I could not find it. Could I have an explanation of that and in particular may I ask that an explanation be given as to the words in brackets in the first line, "other than debenture interest".


James Joseph McCann: Article III, paragraph 1,
provides for a resident of one of the countries who derives income from immovable property. I may explain that income from immovable property means income from rents, from royalties and from interest on mortgages. That is to say immovable property situated in the other country shall be subject to tax in the country of source. Paragraph 2 of this article permits the recipient of the income described therein, if he so desires, to pay tax thereon in the country of source on a net basis.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is this a special clause,
and is it because of some special feature in the agreement between the Netherlands and ourselves?


James Joseph McCann: I am told that the only
difference is that interest on mortgages can be taxed at a rate greater than 15 per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then may I have an
answer to my other question? What is the reason for excepting debenture interest?


James Joseph McCann: Debenture interest is dealt
with in article VIII, which confirms the right of Canada to withhold a tax of 15 per cent at the source on interest arising in Canada and paid to a resident of the Netherlands, and the right of the Netherlands to withhold a similar tax on interest arising in the Netherlands and paid to a resident of Canada.
In addition, this article provides that in the event of one country wishing to increase the 15 per cent rate of tax, that country may, on notice, cease to be bound by the 15 per cent limitation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Was the minister referring to article III or to clause VII?


James Joseph McCann: I was referring to article VIII with reference to the question the hon. gentleman asked, having to do with an exception.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
Articles IV to XVIII inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule, Article XIX.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a question to ask the minister as to the exchange of information, and I want to relate it to the similar clause in our agreement with the United States. I observe that in these three bills the

right and duty to give information is hedged about to some extent. For example, clause 2 of article XIX reads:
The provisions of this article shall not in any case be considered as requiring one of the states to disclose to the other state information the furnishing of which would involve the disclosure of industrial, commercial or professional secrets or trade processes.
Now I will read article VII of the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act:
1.	With a view to the prevention of fiscal evasion each of the contracting states undertakes to furnish to the other contracting state, as provided in the succeeding Articles of this Convention, the information which its competent authorities have at their disposal or are in a position to obtain under its revenue laws in so far as such information may be of use to the authorities of the other contracting state in the assessment of the taxes to which this Convention relates.
2.	The information to be furnished under this Article, whether in the ordinary course or on request, may be exchanged directly between the competent authorities of the two contracting states. - (Statutes of Canada, 1944-45).
The minister will agree, I think, that our arrangement with the United States is considerably broader; there seems to be no limitation of any kind. I realize, of course, that the relationship between Canada and the United States is geographically and in other ways, too, closer than it is with some other countries, but I wish the minister would comment on the point I have raised and, also, that he would say something on the question of this clause providing for the exchange of information, and tell us whether any objections have been raised, particularly in the case of the United States provision.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, this article in the treaty with the Netherlands provides for the exchange of information, information restricted to that which is necessary for the carrying out of the agreement, or for the prevention of fraud, or the avoidance of taxation. No information is to be exchanged which would disclose any trade secret or trade process or anything which was deemed to be against the public policy. Of course, if the country with which we have an agreement felt it would be against public policy to disclose certain information, that information could be withheld.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that true, may I ask, in the case of the United States?


James Joseph McCann: Well, those particular words are not there, but it might well be that if they objected to giving information they could withhold it. One can readily understand-at least I feel I understand-the reason for the wider latitude regarding the exchange of information between Canada and the United States as compared with some of the other countries. The reason is that

we have many more American subsidiary companies doing business in Canada than we have in any other country in the world, and tax-wise that exchange of information is very beneficial to both countries. That is so more particularly, probably, with respect to Canada, because with the establishment of so many United States subsidiaries in this country one can readily understand that there are many more chances for evasion or giving us incorrect information. Money-wise it means we collect a lot more taxes than, probably, we would otherwise do if we did not have this exchange of information.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think what the minister has said is clearly so. Nevertheless, I will read the restricting words in the present agreement with the Netherlands for the purpose of asking whether we consider ourselves in any way bound, if not in the letter then in the spirit, to make these disclosures which are expressly prohibited in the Netherlands agreement. I will read the clause. After the agreement to exchange information of a fiscal nature, article XIX goes on to say:
The information so exchanged shall retain its secret nature and shall not be disclosed to persons other than those charged with assessment and collection of the taxes referred to in this convention.
That would seem to me to be only ordinary good sense, and I would hope that it could easily be observed. The next paragraph does not appear to be so easy:
The provisions of this article shall not in any case be considered as requiring one of the states to disclose to the other state information the furnishing of which would involve the disclosure of industrial, commercial or professional secrets or trade processes.
Can the minister say whether in the absence of such a clause in the United States agreement the precautions so clearly spelled out here would also be observed, because they are part of the spirit if they are not part of the letter of the agreement?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of the agreement is to avoid the evasion of taxes. The type of information which is set out in paragraph 2 of article XIX has never been sought under any other agreement. It is the type of information which would involve the disclosure of commercial or professional secrets. I imagine that would have to do with patents, constituent parts of manufactured chemicals and the like. . We have never been asked for that type of information.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Have there been any complaints made by citizens of either Canada or the United States with regard to the working out of this provision?


James Joseph McCann: There have been no complaints along this line at all.
Income Tax Agreement


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I broaden the question and ask whether there have been any complaints as to the operation of article VII which, as the minister has pointed out, is very useful and very broad in scope?


James Joseph McCann: The hon. gentleman is probably familiar with the case which is now before the courts in the United States, where there was objection by some individuals with regard to our taxation officials giving information on a company which is a Canadian incorporated company, information that we had in the taxation division.
But, as I pointed out in answer to a question in the house, we were within our powers and within our obligations to give that information when it was asked for by the department of internal revenue of the United States.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice that the minister used the words "powers" and "obligations". The obligation is perfectly clear, is it? Is that the view of the department? In other words you had no option? Is that it?


James Joseph McCann: That is exactly it.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
Articles XX to XXIV inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule, Article XXV.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: In part this article reads:
This convention may be made applicable either in its entirety, or with modifications, in respect to any part of the kingdom of the Netherlands outside Europe . . .
In view of what I understand has happened in Indonesia, would the minister say what that would apply to?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, at the moment it only has application to the Netherlands, but the Netherlands has possessions in New Guinea, Netherlands Guiana, Netherlands Antilles and certain islands in the West Indies group. The agreement could be extended to them upon request by the Netherlands government, but at the moment it applies only to the Netherlands proper in Europe.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are these countries presumably under the same laws as the Netherlands and administered by the Netherlands government?


James Joseph McCann: The tax laws would be different.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did the minister say the tax laws would be different?


James Joseph McCann: In these different possessions they would probably have their own tax laws rather than conforming to those of the Netherlands in Europe.

Income Tax Agreement


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then is the agreement drafted with sufficient flexibility to take care of these other laws? I had thought that it dealt only with taxes in the Netherlands and in Canada.


James Joseph McCann: It could with modifications. It would have to be modified in order to apply to these others, because they might have tax laws in some of these possessions that might, from a general look at them, correspond with income taxes but by name might be known as different taxes entirely. Therefore there would have to be modifications if the agreement were to apply to any of the possessions of the Netherlands, and at the moment it does apply only to the Netherlands in Europe.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there a clause-I confess I have not spotted it-which sets forth that the provisions of this legislation can, with the necessary changes, be extended to these other possessions to which it does not now apply? I point out that article XXV seems to suggest merely that further arrangements will be made to extend the application, but as I read that it implies that the present arrangements could be made applicable to these other territories.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is clearly set out in section 2 of Article I which is in these words:
This convention shall also apply to any other taxes of a substantially similar character, imposed by either contracting party subsequent to the signing of this convention.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to take time on this, and indeed it may not be very important, but does the minister really think subsection 2 of article I would apply to taxes in some new territory? It seems to me to apply only to new taxes in the same territory.


James Joseph McCann: If the hon. gentleman will read article XXV he will see that it says:
This convention may be made applicable either in its entirety, or with modification, in respect to any part of the kingdom of the Netherlands outside Europe, which imposes taxes of a substantially similar character to the taxes specified in article I of this convention . . .
I have already read that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That seems to clear it.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
Articles XXVI and XXVII agreed to.
Protocol agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill, by leave of the house, be read the third time now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Joseph McCann: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



James Joseph McCann: the second reading of Bill No. 414, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of South Africa for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to give legal effect in Canada to the agreement which, as the result of negotiations and subsequent exchanges, has been reached between the government of Canada and the government of the Union of South Africa for the avoidance of double taxation and the establishment of rules for reciprocal fiscal assistance in the matter of income taxes, which agreement was signed at Ottawa on the 28th September, 1956.
The agreement follows the pattern established in the present income tax agreements which Canada has made with the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, France and the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as the treaty with the Netherlands which has been before the house today. It has for its purpose the avoidance of double taxation and the exchange of information. Double taxation as avoided chiefly by the reciprocal system of tax credits in which the country of residence gives credit for the tax imposed by the country where the income has its source.
The agreement contains the usual provision limiting the taxation of trading profits to the permanent establishment rule. In addition, certain special provisions are made. Profits from the operation of ships and aircraft will be taxed solely in the country of residence of the operator.
If we follow the same procedure and turn to the schedule we can take the articles one by one.


William Alfred Robinson: For purposes of discussion, is it agreed that I call the articles in the schedule?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 stands.
On the schedule, Article I.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have the same question that I asked the last time. I presume these taxes, though phrased differently, cover the same ground. I should like to know whether in this case it was possible to reach full agreement or whether, as I understand happened in the case of Bill No. 415, there was certain difficulty. I am also curious to know why it takes only about half as many words to make an agreement with South Africa as it does with the Netherlands. Can that question be answered?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed, Mr. Chairman, that the taxation systems of different countries differ widely. This provision has been made because of the fact that there were certain sections in other agreements for which this country did not wish to ask or which did not apply.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the minister indicate in general just what is the difference?


James Joseph McCann: I think that will come out as explanations are made of the different articles. Article I contains specific references to the respective taxes to which the agreement applies. In Canada it applies to the income tax, including surtaxes imposed by the government of Canada, and in South Africa it applies to the normal tax, supertax and non-resident shareholders' tax. The agreements shall apply also to any other taxes of a substantially similar character imposed by either contracting government during the time the agreement may be in force. In the agreement with which we dealt a few minutes ago that was spelled out in greater detail, and as a result there was a longer-appearing agreement.
Article I agreed to.
Articles I to IV inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule, Article V.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice that in the two agreements affecting income taxes the operation of ships and aircraft are treated in a specified way. What is the reason for that?


James Joseph McCann: The difficulty lies in determining just where the profits are made. A ship may call at a port and take on cargo from which certain profits are derived. It is because of the difficulty in determining
Succession Duty Agreement exactly where the profits are earned that both countries agree that profits of that type should not be taxed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They are only taxed in the country of residence of the operator.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
On the schedule, Article VI.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Again I ask for information. Is there a similar article concerning the period of 183 days residence in the agreement with the Netherlands?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, there is.


[Stage Direction]
Article agreed to.
Articles VII to XIII inclusive agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time? Now?
Mr Knowles: By leave.


James Joseph McCann: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


SUCCESSION DUTY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 415, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of South Africa for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to death duties.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
James Joseph McCann: May I make a short statement. This is the fifth convention or agreement to be made with other countries by Canada for the purpose of removing double taxation and preventing fiscal evasion in relation to death duties. The others were with the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Ireland. The principal aims of this agreement are, first, exchange of information to prevent evasions; second, the granting of credits by the country of domicile, or residence in the case of South Africa, for duty paid by the same estate on the same assets to the other contracting country.

Succession Duty Agreement
Some of the other agreements have included agreed rules for situs of property but this agreement with South Africa leaves this question open for determination by the governments involved in each case. Otherwise the agreement is similar in its provisions to the others. We can deal with the separate articles as we go along.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed that I shall call the articles in the schedule for discussion?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like the minister to deal with the questions he himself raised in his statement, and that is the question of situs. What arrangement has been made regarding it? My understanding is that there was difficulty in reaching an agreement and in fact an agreement was not reached. I presume that had something to do with the peculiar law in South Africa. I am struck by the words the minister used in saying how it was to be dealt with. As I took it down, he said that if any question arose it was open for determination by the government in each case. It seems to me like saying you have not any agreement and you have to make an agreement when the time arises. Might that be explained?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed there is no trouble arising from this. We continue to apply death duties on property that is situated in Canada, and they continue to apply duty on properties or assets that are situated in South Africa. There did not come about a general agreement with regard to that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have not quite understood that. I thought this was an agreement for the avoidance of double duties. As I have understood the minister it seemed to me he said that each government was to levy its own duty. How does that fit in with the idea of avoiding double taxation?


James Joseph McCann: I think probably article III would explain the hon. gentleman's difficulty. It removes the double taxation incident, if one occurs. This article provides for credits by the country of domicile in the case of Canada and the country of residence in the case of South Africa where property in the estate is also taxed by the other country on the basis of situs, thus eliminating double taxation. If a South African had property in Canada, in the case of death duties the property would be taxed in Canada; and if a Canadian held property in South Africa and they claimed that the property was there it would be taxable in South Africa, and the other country would give credit for duties paid. May I read the rest of this. It also provides in the second paragraph for
tMr. McCann.]
the sharing of credits in the estate of any person who was both domiciled in Canada and resident in South Africa.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Where was the minister reading from?


James Joseph McCann: Article III.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister draw my attention to that again?


James Joseph McCann: May I read it again.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Which paragraph is it?


James Joseph McCann: Paragraph 1 and 2 of article III on page 3.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am still not quite clear. The minister began by saying there had been no agreement on situs yet. As I read this it seems a very clear-cut way of dealing with the situation. Are we satisfied that we have a workmanlike and practical way of dealing with this situation even if there was difficulty in arriving at agreement on the technical aspects of it? Is this a workmanlike method, and is the minister satisfied?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed that it is so.
Articles III to VIII inclusive agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report the bill?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I by leave ask for an explanation of clause 3 of the bill, which reads:
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this act, or the agreement, and the operation of any other law, the provisions of this act and the agreement prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
I am sorry I did not notice that when we were going through it. I would like to have an explanation of the words "prevail to the extent of the inconsistency".


James Joseph McCann: This article is customary and almost standard in any of these agreements, and it means pretty much what it says. It means that the section would take precedence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That means that it is the last word?


James Joseph McCann: That is the last word.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report the bill?
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill by leave be read a third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


James Joseph McCann: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


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



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the motion of Mr. Harris:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,651,674,050, being one-hal£ of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $7,298,566.67, being one-third of the total of the amounts of items 52, 57, 116, 117, 131, 132, 156 248 281, 322, 324, 328, 355, 399 and 460 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $697,069.25, being one-quarter of the total of the amounts of items 153, 158, 252 and 397 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $3,640,012.17, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 16, 71, 134 217 218 219, 227, 361, 364, 391, 422, 428 and 432 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $2,383,999.92, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 28, 69, 129, 221, 223, 224, 233, 234, 300 321 333, 424, 425, 430 and 503 of the said estimates;
in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $9,635,679.50, being one-half of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $16,166.67, being one-third of the total of the amounts of items 626 and 654 of the said estimates-and a sum not exceeding $208,333.34, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 621 and 640 of the said estimates;
*87 non min additio? thereto a sum not exceeding $7,000,000, being two-sevenths of the total of the amount of item 663 set forth in the further supplementary estimates (1) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $30,555,555.56, being four-ninths of the tot" ft the amounts of items 664, 665, 666, 667 669
Sinnnnnm °t -the .said. estimates: ah'? a sum of $1,000,000 being two-thirds of the total of the amount of item 668 of the said estimates,
ficoni granted V* Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1958.
["business for the private bills hour having been stood by consent, the house will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.", 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.']
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the second
point I was about to raise when the house rose at one o'clock has to do with a matter concerning the telecommunication branch of the Department of Transport, and it arises out of a question which was asked of the Minister of Transport recently, I believe, by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, concerning the matter of the arrears in overtime of employees of the Department of Transport.
As the result of a small press report of the statement by the minister, I have received a communication from an employee of the Vancouver district of the telecommunication branch. I am sure the committee will permit me to quote briefly from this letter without revealing the name of my correspondent. The letter arose from the fact that this gentleman
interim Supply
noticed the report that the minister had promised to look into the question of arrears in overtime. It says:
While Mr. Marler is investigating this overtime situation I wonder if you could bring to his attention that it would be a very good idea if he also investigated the shortage of staff situation in the Vancouver district of the telecommunication branch of the Department of Transport,
Where I am now stationed we are on an overtime basis with one day off in nine.
Perhaps the Minister of Labour might notice this reference to the working conditions under which employees of the government apparently are working at the present time. The letter goes on:
We are on an overtime basis with one day off in nine-and work short changes from shift to shift due to this shortage of staff.
To make matters worse not one member at this station, and the same holds for nearly all this
district, has had last summer's holidays yet_and
now this year's are due. In other words we are on a very tiring overtime shift and due over two months' holidays at this moment.
Perhaps Mr. Marler is not aware of this situation and having it brought to his attention might help relieve this condition.
It might be pointed out to Mr. Marler that this arge shortage of staff in the telecommunications division is probably due to (1) poor wages, (2) poor working conditions or (3) a combination of both. The third is the one I think applies and in order to stop losing more radio operators and to heip the ones left that stick with the job it is time Mr. Marler's department did something as soon as possible, as this condition has existed for a long time now.
I should be interested in anything you can tell me as to relief of this situation.
I realize we are not going to have an opportunity at this session to engage in a full discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Transport, so it probably will not be possible for the minister to give us a detailed statement as to exactly what changes in his department he has in contemplation in this respect. I feel that if the situation described in this letter is correct it is certainly something that should warrant the immediate attention of the minister concerned, and some steps should be taken to relieve it.
I think it should be obvious from the tone of this letter that it originates from someone who is a loyal employee of the Department of Transport and is genuinely concerned that efficient service should be given, but who feels that the working conditions should be reasonable and in line with those that are generally considered acceptable in this country at the present time.
The third point I wish to raise is something that concerns the internal economy of this house. I came here four years ago as a new member; and while I have high hopes that the constituents of Comox-Alberni will see fit to send me back here again, I feel that I can raise this question at this time because

Interim Supply
I am in the same position as every other hon. member at the moment in that we do not know whether we will be back here after a certain Monday in June.
The question I wish to raise relates to what I consider to be a limitation on the effectiveness of the work that individual members of this house, and particularly new members, are able to achieve. This limitation is imposed by the curtailed secretarial help with which we are provided. I know the citizens of Comox-Alberni expect their member of parliament to devote his full time to representing them both during the time the house is in session and when it is not. From my experience in the past four years I know there have been times when quite serious limitations have been imposed on the kind of job I consider I could have done because of the fact that I have not had adequate secretarial assistance. I am sure there are a good many other hon. members of this house, particularly those who are now completing their first parliament, who have felt this limitation; and I feel that this is a point to which a good deal of study might be given by those who are in a position to do that between now and the time the new parliament convenes.
It would certainly be in the interests of the people of Canada if hon. members of this house, at least during the time parliament is in session, were provided with at least one full-time secretary to assist them in performing their duties. I could go further than that and say that from my own experience I feel I could do a much more effective job for my constituents if I were able to have the year-round services of a secretary. I have found it necessary to secure secretarial help at my own expense during the time I spent in my constituency in the recess between sittings of parliament. That sort of arrangement necessarily has to be rather haphazard, because of the lack of continuity in the secretarial help which it is possible to obtain.
As I have said, I am in the same position as every other hon. member of this house at the moment in not knowing whether I will continue to be a member of the house, and because of this I felt I could raise this question today in the hope that if not for myself, at least for future members of this house something may be done to improve the situation.


Mr.   Patlerson@: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief; in fact, I think about two or three minutes will be ample time for me to call the attention of the government to a few matters.

First of all I would like to heartily endorse the observations made yesterday by the hon. member for Bow River relative to freight rates. We have constantly objected to the rash of increases which have brought the rates up to their present levels. It is not necessary for me to go into detail with respect to this and outline the discriminatory effect the freight rates have on the economy of the province of British Columbia and my own constituency. I do believe that the rates as they now obtain are much higher than is warranted, and I would join with the hon. member for Bow River in suggesting that there be a complete overhaul of the freight rate structure.
The other matter to which I wish to briefly direct attention relates to the television service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We have now come to the point where we recognize the importance of this particular medium of communication. Not only does it disseminate information; it also provides entertainment, though some of it is possibly very questionable in terms of value. Nevertheless television has become a recognized service as far as our society is concerned; therefore I feel that all our people should have the advantage of this particular facility. In view of the position occupied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this field I feel they should give serious consideration to extending the coverage in various sections of our country.
I wish to call particular attention to a section of my own constituency extending from Laidlaw in the Fraser valley up to Siska Lodge, which represents a considerable area. The reception there is very poor; in fact some areas are not covered at all. The residents of that area feel justified in seeking some remedial action; therefore I make the request through the responsible minister that this subject be taken into consideration. If it has not already been given consideration and a survey made I would request that this be done at the earliest possible moment, so these people may have the opportunity of taking advantage of this service.


Mr. Pearson:: 
Howard Charles Green: Before the minister leaves this question may I point out, and I quote his statement on November 29 of last year, in which he listed the functions of the force and ended with these words:
-and to take steps to re-open the Suez canal and to restore and secure freedom of navigation.
Interim Supply


Lester Bowles Pearson: I remember that statement and I can quite agree that in the way it is worded that interpretation could be drawn from it, but if my hon. friend will read the paragraph preceding and the paragraph subsequent to the words he has just read I think it will be clear from the context that I was referring to the function of the United Nations assembly under the resolution. I say this because in the resolution of November 2 one of the functions undertaken by the United Nations did concern the Suez canal, but it was not a function of the United Nations emergency force, as such, to operate in clearing the Suez canal. It was to bring about conditions in the Suez canal area which would make easier a settlement, and that is the exact situation with regard to the force. However, the assembly itself has a duty under these resolutions to deal with the Suez situation.


Howard Charles Green: The United Nations emergency force never did have any responsibility in connection with the Suez then, and has none today-is that correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman; it did have a function when it was deployed along the Suez canal, which was then the dividing line between the conflicting forces-


Howard Charles Green: I mean with respect to
navigation?
Pearson: No, not with respect to navigation, but it did have a function with respect to maintaining peaceful conditions in the Suez canal when the forces were there; therefore it would have been their indirect function to facilitate communications by maintaining peace, but once the non-Egyptian forces withdrew from the Suez canal it did not have a function of that kind.
The other question was with respect to the use of the United Nations emergency force in the Gaza strip and on that point I am not in a position to amplify what I have already said more than once in this house in regard to the function of the force in this strip. I do not, however, think that I should pass over without comment the hon. member's insinuation, indeed it was his statement this morning, concerning the effect of the United Nations emergency force's presence in relation to the parties to the armistice agreement I understand my hon. friend said that it seemed as if the force was there to protect Egypt from Israeli incursion-or words to that effect.
Now as I understand it freedom of navigation has not yet been assured through the Suez canal, and I would like to ask whether the United Nations emergency force has dropped that particular function?
82715-221J
My information is that the force is deployed throughout the strip as well as at the demarcation line and that since detailed arrangements were worked out to enable them effectively to prevent and forestall raids across the

Interim Supply
line there has been an encouraging degree of stability in this highly sensitive area. That is according to the report we have received and I believe that the commander of the force, General Burns, is satisfied with the way in which the force is able to carry out its function, although of course its task would be facilitated if it were in a position to operate on both sides of the demarcation line.


Howard Charles Green: On this question may I ask the minister whether there is any so-called gentlemen's agreement between the secretary general of the United Nations and Nasser that the United Nations emergency force will get out if and when he requests them to do so?


Lester Bowles Pearson: You refer to a withdrawal?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no such agreement and, on the contrary, the secretary general has stated more than once to the assembly and to the committee of seven that if any request of that kind were made by Colonel Nasser or the Egyptian government that request would be taken up with the committee of seven and then, if the committee so decided, by the full assembly of the United Nations, before any action was taken. That is the position of the secretary general and it is our position.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister yet in a position to say whether there will be a subcommittee of the advisory committee sent over to Gaza to look into the situation for themselves?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I said the other day, that suggestion which my hon. friend raised will be taken up at the first meeting of the committee to be held, I hope, in a day or two and at that time we hope also to have a report from Mr. Bunche on the operation of the force in the strip. That meeting has not yet been held, for reasons for which we are not responsible, but it will be held shortly-I hope perhaps before the end of this week.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister raising that suggestion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I will be very glad to raise that suggestion at the meeting of the committee to which I have referred.
Now, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, and I am quoting from page 3407 of Hansard, said:
I am not going to deal with the Norman case in that connection, but I point out that in 1951, when the allegations were first made by the subcommittee of the Senate of the United States, instead of the Canadian government standing up and asking for proof rather than suspicion it took the action of transferring Mr. Norman from the United Nations in New York to far-off New Zealand.

I propose to put on record what happened to be the facts in this aspect of this tragic case. When this matter was raised in 1951 this government dealt with it in a way that seemed to be open to us, and it made its position known, not publicly, but to the United States government. The results of that stand seemed to be effective because for a good many years we heard nothing in Washington about the suspicions, the innuendoes and insinuations. It looked as though, so far as Washington was concerned, this matter would be dropped.
So our action seemed to be effective at that time, and when these allegations were revived in March 1957 we again took action at once by means of a diplomatic note, the terms of which have been put on record, and later by public statements. Thus it is not accurate to say that we did not make our position known, and it is not accurate to say that at that time our position was not effectively made known and that it did not have results.
As for taking the action, in the words of the hon. gentleman, of transferring Mr. Norman from the United Nations in New York to far off New Zealand-and in the context in which those words were used I think I would be justified in interpreting them as meaning that in consequence of United States pressure we removed an important official from the United Nations to New Zealand-the facts are as follows: Mr. Norman was never the Canadian permanent representative to the United Nations. On the death of Mr. Riddell in 1951 we had to find a successor as permanent representative, and we decided to appoint Mr. David Johnson to that position, and accordingly transferred him from the post he then held in Pakistan to New York. However, various considerations made it impossible to get him to New York from Pakistan within a period of, I think, between three and four months, during which time the position was held on an acting basis, first by Mr. John Holmes for a few weeks and then, when he had to leave to take up another appointment, for a short time-about two months, I think,-by Mr. Norman on an acting basis pending the arrival of Mr. Johnson.
Far from having transferred Mr. Norman from that very important position as permanent representative at the United Nations, which was to be filled by Mr. Johnson, to far off New Zealand, when he had completed his work in New York on this acting basis he was brought back to the Department of External Affairs and made head of the Far Eastern division of the department. Only in 1953, after he had been promoted to a grade which made it possible for him to

become head of a diplomatic mission, was his work recognized by his transfer to New Zealand as Canadian High Commissioner. And after serving in New Zealand very well indeed, when a very important position became vacant in Cairo in 1956, Mr. Norman was then transferred to Cairo as Ambassador.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that that disposes of the suggestion that we yielded to some kind of pressure in New York and removed the permanent Canadian representative from the United Nations to far off New Zealand.
I would like now to make a short statement concerning a matter on which questions were asked in the house a few days ago. On March 15 I made a statement in the house which included the following paragraph:
This record-
That is, the record of the sub-committee of the United States Senate on security.
This record contains a great many innuendos and insinuations that Mr. Norman was a communist. We knew all about those charges which were made years ago in Washington, as a result of which Mr. Norman was subjected, in his own interests and in the public interest and with his own approval and full co-operation, to a special and exhaustive security check, the results of which were announced in two press releases by our department on August 9 and August 24, 1951.
That is what I said in the house on March 15. This particular sub-committee has made a wide variety of allegations against Mr. Norman. It has always been a principle, and I think, a correct principle, of our security investigation that we would not deal publicly in connection with a security inquiry with the details of any allegations made, for the reason that the details of a man's private life should not be the subject of accusation and rebuttal in public. The reasons behind this principle are I think obvious; it might well do far more harm than good, to the man in question, and it might cause results which would be unfortunate to all concerned without being of any assistance whatever to security.
In this unhappy, indeed in this tragic case which has attracted such tremendous attention and which has created so much controversy, and from which so many deductions have been drawn and implications made, I think I should, however-and I do it with regret-depart as a very rare exception from this practice, simply to say that Mr. Norman as a university student many years ago was known to have associated quite openly in university circles with persons who were thought to be communists or who appeared to behave like communists. He made no secret of those university associations.
Interim Supply
These early associations of Mr. Norman were of course known to us when allegations were made and his record at that time was thoroughly re-checked in the light of all the information available, including of course information from confidential sources. It would be quite wrong for me to disclose the confidential information which we obtained, and that is a principle which I ask the house to respect. However I may say that I examined all this information in great detail more than once, because as his minister I had a particular responsibility in that regard, a responsibility which I accepted.
As a result of this study, the conclusion was reached that Mr. Norman was a loyal Canadian in whom we could trust, and the decision was made to retain him in a position of trust. All I can add is to reiterate that every one of the allegations made against him was examined in detail, and to say that the conclusion was reached on all the facts that there was no doubt in our minds about Mr. Norman's integrity and loyalty. His loyal and devoted and most valuable service over the years in positions of increasing importance has never given us any cause to regret that decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, before I refer to the minister's remarks I would like to ask him whether the statements made before the subcommittee of the United States senate on March 13 and 21 were untrue and unjustified and have no basis in fact. Did I understand the minister to say that that is a fact? That is the question I asked this morning on the basis of certain press dispatches published in the last 24 hours. I would ask the minister whether that is so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I have made my statement. I have told the committee what we knew about Mr. Norman, and I think I will stand on that statement. I am not going to say at this moment whether any single statement made in a United States subcommittee is accurate or not. I have not got the statements before me. I have said that Mr. Norman, to our knowledge, had certain communist associations as a student many years ago, and that we were not going to allow that to drive him out of the public service of Canada in face of the long years of loyal devotion he has given to the country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the answer is an equivocal one, because I asked these questions this morning and the minister has the evidence which was given before the subcommittee on those two days.
While he equivocates by saying that he does not have the statements before him at the moment, he has them in his office and he

Interim Supply
made a prepared statement today. I want it clear once and tor all that the statements made on these two days had no basis in fact in order to assure that Mr. Norman's memory will not be subjected to the stigma of statements such as were made there.
I want to say something more. The other day the minister made a very lengthy and resonant speech on the use of security information furnished by Canada to corresponding institutions in the United States, and with great resolution he said that we have warned the United States that from now on none of our security information will be available to the United States in any way, in order to deny the use of this confidential information to any investigating committee of congress. I now ask him this question. Having regard to the items in today's Montreal Gazette and Toronto Globe and Mail dealing with this matter, did any of the information that was placed upon the records of this subcommittee in the United States originate in any way, directly or indirectly, in communications from Canada in connection with security regulations?
It is a proper question, because if it did not, and the press reports today indicate that it did not, then all of the courageous stand taken by the minister the other day is meaningless. Why should the United States be denied that spirit of co-operation that has prevailed in the past unless some of the information furnished by Canada did in fact find its way in an improper manner into the possession of this committee? I ask the minister specifically, without going into details, and I honour the confidentiality of those communications: Did any portion of the information transmitted by Canadian security bodies find improper use in the records of the United States senate committee?
It is a very simple question. If the minister says it did not, then all of his statements the other day about the tremendously courageous action of saying to the United States that from now on we will not furnish any security information are meaningless. If they did use it, then everything he said was justified. On the basis of an article appearing in the Gazette from the New York Times service and also appearing in the New York Times itself, I ask the minister whether once and for all he will clear this matter. Did the United States authorities improperly, unjustly or in a manner not in keeping with confidentiality, disclose anything that was ever communicated to them with reference to Mr. Norman?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer the question; indeed, I think I answered it in the House of Commons in my

statement. It is too bad that the hon. gentleman did not read it again. I said at that time that we had no complaint in this matter about the way in which information sent by our security agency in Canada to the security agency in the United States was used. I can also confirm that on this occasion and in regard to this matter the information obtained by the subcommittee was not, to the best of our knowledge, obtained from any Canadian security source via a United States agency. They did not, so far as we know, act on any Canadian official information. They got their information about a Canadian diplomat from their own sources. My hon. friend knows that this kind of United States committee can subpoena anybody.


John George Diefenbaker: Then why penalize their department for something they did not do?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend complains that we did not do anything, and when we try to do something he complains that what we are doing is not going to be of any use.


John George Diefenbaker: Why penalize them for something they did not do?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It might be helpful if he would give us some constructive advice as to what he would do. As 1 also said in my statement the other day, the situation that developed two or three weeks ago in regard to this disclosure of information caused us to examine once again whether we should in these circumstances send any security information from Canada even to the United States security agency unless we can get the assurance from that agency that such information will not go to a congressional subcommittee or any congressional committee.
We knew the difficulties of the constitution of the United States, and if they could not give us that assurance because of those constitutional difficulties then I said that we would reserve our right to cut off security information from all United States agencies. My hon. friend is complaining about that because it might hurt the United States and interfere with our confidential and friendly relations. Here is something that is within our power. If a congressional or any other committee of the United States legislature acts in an irresponsible way by making public information concerning a Canadian citizen, particularly a Canadian official, wherever it gets its information about that Canadian, instead of sending it to Canadian sources for checking; if they do that in a United States congressional sub-committee then we reserve the right to say that we cannot take a chance of any such committee

securing information from any official Canadian source and we might have to cut off all their sources of security information. Perhaps that will not accomplish what we have in mind because the United States executive, as we all know, has some di-ficulty in controlling the United States congress. But that is something we can do and I hope my hon. friend will agree it is something we should do in these circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend said that we did not give him any assistance. We demanded for several days that a protest be made-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -but the government was silent. The Prime Minister said that there was no intention to make a protest.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: We took a strong stand in that regard to ensure that Canadian rights would be preserved and maintained. But let me say this: The minister's explanation is one of the quaintest I have ever heard. The minister says that there has been no leakage of confidential information passed to the security corps of the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say
that in other matters there has been?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are not talking about
other matters.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister now retreats from his previous stand.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: The suggestion he has
just made is a dangerous and serious one. He has either spoken too much or too little. He cannot hide in that way from his responsibility. When the minister spoke on April 10 he endeavoured to leave the impression that what evidence had been taken by the United States committee had been obtained as the result of information passed by Canada and then subject to leakage.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, that is quite
contrary to my statement. If my hon. friend will read it-


John George Diefenbaker: I will read it. I ask
my friend to look at page 3358 of Hansard and read what he said. At that time he said:
Nevertheless, this experience has emphasized that we should now take steps to ensure that information received from us on these matters could not possibly be used for wrong purposes against Canadians in the future.
Interim Supply


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is wrong with that?


John George Diefenbaker: The only meaning of
that is that it was done.


James Joseph McCann: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Otherwise it is just
one of those smoke-screens raised in order to explain an untenable position.


Mr. Stick:: Smokescreen yourself.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister asks what
suggestions we made. We pressed over and over again for a protest, but we say what justification is there to penalize a favourable government, a friendly government, a great government like that of the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -for something that
they or none of them have done unless the minister in his last answer revealed something? I challenge him to say now, in order to clear up what he meant a few moments ago, that the United States government or any branch of that government, congressional committee or otherwise, at no time in the past used Canadian confidential information to the detriment of Canadians. A moment ago the minister took refuge behind a statement which I give him an opportunity to clear up. I say to him again he has either said too much or he has said too little.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to deal with an international question, but one which I think is perhaps of more importance than the one that has been generating so much heat for the last few minutes, both on the government benches and in the official opposition. I am basing my remarks on one of the estimates we are considering, item No. 52, a grant for research and investigation on atomic energy. I am interested to note, in fact I am very pleased to note, that this is one of the items that has been selected for particular treatment in that we are being asked to vote now what will finally be eleven-twelfths of the total annual vote. I think it is a very necessary thing.
I would however, point out that all our care, all our research may fall to the ground unless the government of Canada is prepared to assume a rather more responsible attitude than it has in the past with regard to the situation which is causing very great concern to those who should know. I wish to quote from a report from London which appeared on April 5 in the Ottawa Journal.

Interim Supply
It was a report of the British medical research council into the dangers that might lie in continued thermonuclear test explosions. It was published in the Lancet, and published by what is I think usually considered as the premier medical research organization in the world, the British medical research council, which unlike most other organizations has under its control virtually all the medical research in that country. They have come out rather definitely in their statement which was produced in the organ of the British medical association, the Lancet. They say, to start with:
-the radioactive accumulations from H-bomb explosions "may be near the danger point ..."
Commenting on the statement by Prime Minister MacMillan this week that the government will carry out its planned H-bomb experiment in the South Pacific this year, the Lancet says:
"For those who fear, as we do, that the radioactive accumulation from thermonuclear explosions may be near the danger point, there can be little lasting comfort in the news that British bombs are small bombs, while the action of other countries remains in doubt.
The only course that does not involve risks which, in relation to mankind as a whole, are utterly unjustifiable is for the three governments so far concerned to stop thermonuclear explosions of all kinds."
I am well aware, of course, that the Canadian government is not itself directly responsible for thermonuclear explosions. But I would point out that we have perhaps an important responsibility resulting from the fact that we are one of the world's major sources of fissionable material and also because of our peculiar position with regard to two of the powers that are engaged in this criminal folly, one the United States of America and the other the United Kingdom.
I am well aware, too, that even though we were able to persuade the British and the United States governments to stop thermonuclear explosions, we have no means whatever of dealing with the third power that is engaged in this disastrous work. I am well aware that there is not in the Soviet union an effective body of public opinion to which we could appeal. I would point this out, and I am supported by those who should know, that there is little or no military advantage to be gained from further thermonuclear explosions. In fact I think it is not too much to say that the purposes of these explosions are entirely different from their ostensible purposes and that the United States and the Soviet union are using these explosions as part of the cold war. The purpose is something akin to the meaning of that old phrase that used to be used in my childhood, "showing the flag". This meant that you went

and shook the stick of your naval power in the face of people you felt had to be brought to time.
I submit that could be the only purpose of these explosions, to act more or less as weapons in the cold war. In so far as Great Britain is concerned, pathetically enough for one who was born there, I have to accept the fact that on her own admission she is embarking on this course for the very paltry reason of national prestige; a very dangerous position.


Mr. Bell:: Shame.


Colin Cameron: Prime Minister MacMillan himself stated that that is their purpose; they must do it in order that they may maintain their prestige. I hear somebody say "shame". The Prime Minister of Great Britain admits himself that it is necessary for Britain's international prestige that she engage in this dangerous folly.


Thomas Miller Bell: I object to the word "paltry".


Colin Cameron: I am afraid I consider any reason that is not absolutely incontrovertible for engaging in this dangerous folly to be a paltry reason because we are playing here with something that is much more important than any matter that has been discussed in this house during this session, that is the very future of the human race.
I should like to quote from a series of addresses given at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by one of the world's leading mathematicians, Professor Bronowski, who was the man who wrote the report for the British government on the Nagasaki and Hiroshima explosions. He has this to say in his first address to the students of M. I. T.:
The power of science for good and for evil has troubled other minds than ours. We are not here fumbling with a new dilemma; our subject and our fears are as old as the tool-making civilizations. Men have been killed with weapons before now: what happened at Nagasaki was only more massive (for 40,000 were killed there by a flash which lasted seconds) and more ironical (for the bomb exploded over the main Christian community in Japan). Nothing happened eleven years ago except that we changed the scale of our indifference to man; and conscience, in revenge for an instant became immediate to us. Before this immediacy fades in a sequence of televised atomic tests, let us acknowledge our subject for what it is; civilization face to face with its own implications.
I submit that the government of Canada, in its unique position in relation to two of the powers engaged in these tests and in relation to its position as one of the major sources of fissionable material, has a direct responsibility to speak openly and bluntly about this dangerous criminal folly. I have no doubt whatever members of the Canadian

government have been using their good offices in private; I have no doubt at all that all the arguments I have presented have been presented in private to the representatives of these two other governments. But I suggest there is need for something more than merely the private presentation of these views. There is need for a similar, blunt and unequivocal statement on the part of the Canadian government with regard to this sort of folly as the one made a few days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the tragic case that has just been discussed.
I would urge that the Canadian government take this seriously into consideration and realize that there may indeed be further tragic results for us in it because, while there is no possible gain to be made militarily from these tests, if the United States government and the British government could be persuaded to stop them then the government of the U.S.S.R. is going to be left in a very embarrassing and unfortunate position with regard to those peoples in the world who, like ourselves, are viewing these tests with dismay and anxiety; the people of the uncommitted areas of the world.
I suggest that the Canadian government could perform no more valuable service for the people of the world than for one of its spokesmen to speak up as bluntly and firmly as did Mr. Adlai Stevenson during the election campaign in the United States.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, it is very unusual for me to intervene in a debate on external affairs, but this situation which we have been discussing this afternoon seems to me to have become so extraordinary that I feel constrained to do it. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke the other day about the Norman incident I went along with him the whole way; I approved of everything he said. I repeat, I really went along with him the whole way; there was no questioning in my mind whatever. The first thing that raised questions in my mind was later in the day when I heard it suggested that there were people who thought they knew a good deal about the background and who had not accepted the minister's full exoneration of Mr. Norman.
The next thing that bothered me-and it bothered me a lot-was when the Minister of National Health and Welfare this morning, when asked by the Leader of the Opposition whether he could give a virtually certified statement that Mr. Norman was trusted through and through by the department-I have not the exact words but I think that is a clear summary of what he was asked. It seemed perfectly obvious to me that the
Interim Supply
minister was embarrassed; that he could not feel he could offhand say any such thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I correct that at once? I know my hon. friend is the kind of man who does not want to create wrong impressions on matters such as this. My hon. friend, if he had been the acting minister in a matter of this importance, I am sure would have taken the position that before answering a question with which he was not in day-to-day association would have replied that that is the kind of question that he would want to carefully consider before replying.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think that is a fair answer. On the other hand, having regard to the feelings that I had when I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs say the other day that there was no question about it, that the United States committee was wholly wrong, that there was no justification for them to-


Lester Bowles Pearson: So it was wholly wrong.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I need not labour that; I am giving my feeling of disquiet. And, of course, it is added to by the fact that the minister has rushed back this afternoon to make another statement, which I am glad he has done.
I am going to do what not everyone will approve of; I am going to read some extracts from an article in the Globe and Mail because they have disturbed me. They come from a man whom I respect, although he has criticized me pretty severely. He writes seriously, and what he writes 1 think is entitled to an answer. For that reason I am going to put part of it on the record. It is an article of Mr. George Bain in the Globe and Mail this morning. The thing that has puzzled me-and the minister's statement this afternoon did not wholly answer it-and disturbed me is that apparently this real feeling-and I know it is a real one-that we must not disclose a lot of details connected with the man. I believe, if I read this correctly, it has created difficulty because of the fact that we did not, as I read this story, put the whole story on the record years ago. I read:
The Canadian government's protest to the United States yesterday, which won it headlines in most newspapers in Canada, was 90 per cent a sham. As External Affairs Minister Pearson himself conceded, the sort of security information which Canada threatened to cut off from the United States, was not the sort of information the senate internal security subcommittee had used against Mr. Norman anyway. Yesterday's note, and Mr. Pearson's tough little speech that went with it. were aimed almost entirely at domestic consumption. The aim was to make a show, not in the reasonable expectation of anything tangible resulting from it, but to make Canadians feel their government was taking stern steps to protect their interests.

Interim Supply
The fact that there Is not really anything effective it can do to prevent such things as the Norman affair happening in the United States, does not make any more worthy its making a sham of having sought to do so.
What it could have done, and what simple justice demanded that it do in behalf of its slandered servant, was to make public forthright, factual answers to the questions which had been raised by the subcommittee in the United States.
But the forthright defence of someone who has been accused of being a communist may not win a political party any marks in some parts of Canada -and I think of Quebec-and one can assume that to be the reason the government has chosen to direct its attention to maundering about the evils of some U. S. committee, rather than to cleaning the name of the individual. And in doing so it has been guilty of the worst sort of gutlessness.
I wish to read a further piece from this hoping that it may provoke comment from the minister because it seems to me a very plain question on which I confess I at the moment am not clear, and I want to be clear.
I still read from George Bain:
While it has been making a great show of protesting to the United States against what was done to E. H. Norman-and I suggest it has been mostly a show, intended mainly to impress Canadians before an election with the sturdiness of purpose of their government-the Canadian government has done less than justice to its late ambassador to Egypt.
The Canadian government has within its power to lay out, point by point, the facts upon which it decided in 1951 that Mr. Norman's loyalty and integrity were in all respects beyond doubt, and it has not only failed to do so, but it has refused to do so.
It has refused on the ground that it is well-established policy not to disclose information relating to security investigations.
Here is one of the things that bother me. I can see there is a real problem but I can also see the argument that it has worked in reverse, apparently, in the case of Mr. Norman. I continue:
This, however, is a case so different from any other which has occurred-the man is dead, apparently driven to suicide by the seeming hopelessness of escaping from allegations made in a foreign nation-that there is eminent reason for saying that ordinary policy does not apply.
I skip and I read again:
I have been trying for a week to get from the Department of External Affairs the answers to the specific allegations which were made against Mr. Norman by the United States investigators. This has produced nothing except reasons why it is impossible to do so, none of them particularly convincing. I do not believe that the confidence which the government expressed in Mr. Norman in 1951 was unfounded: I believe that a combination of red tape, stupidity and plain, everyday gutlessness has stopped the government from giving the answers which could have cleared away the doubts of those doubters who are so unfortunately prevalent today.
That is what I wanted to put on the record. As I say, having begun three days ago by thinking that this was a straight-ahead case, having accepted the minister's statement as a full treatment of the case, I have been [Mr. Macdonnell.l
unwillingly constrained to back away from that situation and I now find myself in a great state of perplexity. I am not able to answer to myself the queries which have been raised by Mr. Bain. I feel prima facie there is force in what he says, and I hope to hear something more about it so that my present state of mind, which is a very unsatisfactory one, may be cleared up if possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister is not here at the moment but I shall simply ask this question so that before the termination of this day and dissolution the Prime Minister will be able to furnish the answer which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has refused to give. I therefore ask the Prime Minister through you, sir; Has there been any incident in recent years-by "recent years" I mean since 1945 -when information regarding security questions or matters furnished to the United States has been improperly used or has found its way into any United States senatorial or house of representatives committee?
If so, when did that take place and what protests, if any, were made at that time?
I shall say no more at this time. I will wait for the Prime Minister's answer. After all he is the one to whom this question must be finally directed in view of the fact that his minister of external affairs having given to this house the suggestion that this has happened in the past, when challenged to answer whether it had, was unable to answer that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I have not given the suggestion to the house that this has happened in the past and if my hon. friend will read the statement I made last Wednesday he cannot draw that inference from it nor from anything I have said today. I have said that we are not complaining about the actions of the security agency of the United States. I have also said in public that the exchange of information between these two agencies is helpful to both countries and I said that in my statement a few days ago. The hon. member now asks me to answer whether at any time in the past-


John George Diefenbaker: Just say it has not taken place, if that is the case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the security information that had been sent from here to the United States had been wrongfully used by the security agency of the United States when this information is going forward every day. With hundreds of items of information going forward in the course of a month, he asks me now if at any time in the past any bit of information sent to the security agency of the United States has been wrongfully

used and he knows perfectly well that in the last hour of a session of parliament that question cannot be answered.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps it cannot be answered by the minister but he challenged me when I asked him-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I challenged what you said yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: -whether any information in this case had been wrongfully used; he would not say yes or no but he left the clear intimation which he now has had to withdraw and retract from, that such a thing had not taken place.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at all.


Some hon. Members:: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: And that being the case the whole basis for the statement the other day that from now the United States of America is to be denied information on security grounds entirely falls to the ground. We find that what actually took place was that the minister simply indulged in vehement language unbacked by experience or past fears.


Mrs. Shipley:: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman having been completely wrong yesterday -and he made no reference to that statement-is wrong twice again in what he has just said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said in my statement the other day that the information in this case did not come from any Canadian source and how many times does he want me to say that?


John George Diefenbaker: Read the statement and you will see it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member was also wrong in saying that I have now said that because of that we will give no security information to the United States. I have not said that at any time. I said that if we did not get the assurances we required to make certain that this information is not wrongfully used we reserved the right to cut off information. On a matter of such importance not only to Canada but to our relationship with the United States why does the hon. member not endeavour at least to be accurate?


Marie Ann Shipley: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that does not answer the question. The other day in the words of his which I quoted the minister left the clear intimation that some of this information that had been furnished under 82715-222i
Interim Supply
security regulations or in pursuance of security routine had found its way into the committee-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quite the contrary, quite the contrary.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, after all, the minister reads his statements. That statement was carefully prepared. His language is generally very clear. The words I quoted are-


Walter Edward Harris: Clear as can be.


John George Diefenbaker: -interpretable in no other way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Point out the words in the statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I read them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You cannot do it.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to come between the minister and the Leader of the Opposition but I must say I got exactly the same impression.


Lester Bowles Pearson: From what words?


Solon Earl Low: From the statement that was made by the minister the other day, as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But from what words?


Solon Earl Low: The impression I got was that the big issue between the government of Canada and the government of the United States was leakage of information that was furnished by this country to the security agency in the United States. There was quite a lot of froth generated over it the other day and I am quite certain that a great many people across the country got the same impression.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quite the contrary, if you will read the words. I will read them to you.


Mr, Low:: All right, I will give the minister a chance to read those words but I want to ask him one or two further questions in order that we might get this matter clarified. It is unfortunate to say the least that in the dying minutes of this session a matter of as grave implications as this should arise without there being ample opportunity to get it cleared away.
I would like to find out exactly what the issue is. Is the issue the information brought out in the investigating committee in the United States concerning Mr. Norman or is the issue the supplying of information on a confidential basis from our security people in Canada to the security people in the United States?


Mr. Mariin:: Oh no.

Interim Supply


Solon Earl Low: From what has happened here this week one gathers that the whole issue was that we could not trust the people in the United States to make the wisest use of information which we supply to them and if you talk to people anywhere on the streets today that is exactly the thing they will quote back to you. Whether it is right or wrong that is the attitude of the people, the impression they gathered.
I think we ought to get the matter straight. What is the issue which we are trying to discuss here? Is the issue whether or not Canada should furnish information on a confidential basis to the security people in the United States or are we trying to get cleared away the facts of the case in connection with the person who was accused- no, I will not say accused because I do not think he was-but the person concerning whom information came up in the investigations of the subcommittee of the United States senate?
Let me point out that in reading George Bain's article in the Globe and Mail one cannot come to any other conclusion than that the government failed dismally right from 1951 to get this thing cleared away as it ought to have been. I think if Mr. Norman was hounded to his death, as a good many people seem to think he was-I have kept quiet about it because I did not know enough about the case to say anything but I have been listening very carefully and I have watched public reaction-then this government and the officials of the Department of External Affairs must bear a large part of the blame.
Now wait just a moment; it is all right for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to just shrug that off-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not shrugging it off.


Solon Earl Low: You had a perfect opportunity to clear this whole thing away since 1951 and to say to the Canadian people whether he was or was not associated with communism.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said he was a loyal Canadian.


Solon Earl Low: The first time we have heard a word about this subject from the lips of the minister was today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


Mr. Dickey:: Where have you been?


Solon Earl Low: The first time he mentioned it was today and if I remember correctly he said that in his early years Mr. Norman had associations with communists. That is exactly what the subcommittee in the United States took as evidence from somebody.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, no, they went much further.


Solon Earl Low: I happen to have a copy of the evidence in front of me which I have just been reading.


An hon. Member:: This is just another attempt to smear.


Solon Earl Low: I am not attempting to smear at all. What I am attempting to understand is why the minister and his associates allowed this thing to drag on from 1951 without coming clean and making it clear that this man had been cleared.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We said that in 1951; twice, formally.


Solon Earl Low: I know you did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, what do you want us
to do?


Solon Earl Low: But today the minister is letting us know something that he has withheld ever since 1951.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We said he was a loyal citizen.


Solon Earl Low: That is right, the minister very reluctantly let that out today and perhaps, as the Leader of the Opposition said, he said too much. The point is that the minister did say today that it was discovered in 1951 that in Mr. Norman's early years he had had certain associations with communists, but that had all been cleared away. What I am interested in finding out is this: What was the security check that was held in 1951? I have understood from the minister's statements that there was a double check; by whom was that double check made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: By the R.C.M.P.


Solon Earl Low: By the R.C.M.P. security people; were they the ones who gave him the clearance in 1951?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The R.C.M.P. did the
checking.


Solon Earl Low: That is fine; the R.C.M.P. may have done the checking but after the checking was done by the R.C.M.P. security people who gave Mr. Norman the clearance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the basis of the R.C.M.P. check Mr. Norman was given a complete clearance.


Solon Earl Low: By whom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: By the government.


Solon Earl Low: Then apparently it was not the security people of the R.C.M.P. who cleared him at all, if it was on the basis the minister says.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was on the basis of the R.C.M.P. check that the government-


Solon Earl Low: That the government cleared him; that is right, but I want to find out what was done. We have the situation where the minister has admitted today that in certain years Mr. Norman did have certain associations with the communists. Now I am not condemning him for that; it may have been a perfectly harmless thing. Many students have been known to do that-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course they have; many students have, many good Canadians too.


Solon Earl Low: The question I would like to ask is this: What was the latest date on which evidence of such associations have come to the attention of the minister and his associates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer as to the exact date, but it was in the thirties.


Solon Earl Low: It was in the thirties; was there any check made later than 1951 on any other possible associations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, there was a complete check made after 1951.


Solon Earl Low: Well, the issue as I see it today ought to be either to clear this thing away once and for all and not to try to draw a smoke screen over the whole business by invoking threats to the effect that we will not allow any further security information to go to the United States if they are going to misuse it. As far as I am concerned I would like to see the minister deal with that feature of it and leave it at that. We have to work with the United States; their security is bound up with ours and ours with theirs in every way, and it is not going to help the security of the whole of North America to draw a smoke screen over what I think are omissions of the government during a period of six or seven years; that is exactly what I think has been done.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have to speak again but I must deal with these very serious points that have been raised by my hon. friend, one of which is to the effect that we bear a share, and I bear the major part of that share as minister of the department, for Mr. Norman's death. That is a statement I hate to see on the record of this house. I do not have to defend my part in Mr. Norman's case because I was convinced of his loyalty and decency as a Canadian from the first day he entered the Department of External Affairs until the day of his tragic death. I have defended him whenever defence was necessary to the best of my ability and I have done my utmost to keep the innuendoes, suspicions and implications as a result of the witch-hunting
Interim Supply
tactics of another country from being made public. Am I now to be held responsible for his death because I have tried to stand up for him?


Solon Earl Low: I did not indicate that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Am I to be attacked now because I did not make public all the evidence taken at this inquiry of the security agency in the United States the effect of which might have been disastrous to people's good names, merely on suspicion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are in Ottawa, not in Washington.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are in Ottawa, that is true, and we do not do that kind of thing in this country. I have said more than once that I have always had faith in the loyalty, the patriotism and the good faith and honour of this public servant. I said that in 1951 when these rumours first came to our attention and I issued a statement at that time saying that this man was a devoted and loyal servant. I did not make public all the suspicions and implications coming from the south and thereby focus publicity on the statements which were not all true, although of course some of the things that appeared in this evidence were true. He had been at Columbia University, he had met so-and-so in some places, here and there. However, there were inferences drawn by these people on this committee from these statements which were false and malicious and I, for one, am not going to take re-sponsibilty, even now, for giving unnecessary publicity to them.
I departed from that principle with great reluctance this afternoon because I thought I was in duty bound to say something about it on account of the publicity that was coming out in the press.
Now I have nothing more to say about that, except that my own conscience is perfectly clear in this connection. Yfe have never refused to give to the United States, or to the security agency of the United States government, any information which we had which might be helpful in assuring the security of our two countries. I have not said, and I repeat this, that we will not exchange security information with the United States; this has been a valuable procedure and we want to keep it up but we cannot run the risk, after what has happened, of giving them security information about a Canadian citizen without some assurance-if we can get that assurance- that it will not be passed on to witch-hunting agencies. I made the statement the other

Interim Supply
day that we reserve the right to stop this kind of thing if we cannot do it in the right way.
As to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, which was repeated by the hon. member who has just spoken, that he drew the conclusion from my statement that we were criticizing United States security agencies because they were doing these things,
I must put this on the record again. I am reading from page 3358 of Hansard.
We have, therefore, with this purpose in mind, examined our procedures regarding exchange of security information with the United States. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that nothing we could have done would have prevented the action taken against Mr. Norman by the United States senate subcommittee on security because the information they gave out, covering allegations going back years and dealt with by this government years ago, was secured from other than Canadian sources. Nevertheless, this experience has emphasized that we should now take steps to ensure that information received from us on these matters could not possibly be used for wrong purposes against Canadians in the future.
And then I quoted from the note which we had just sent to the United States government-and I do not know why my hon. friend did not read this paragraph because it concerns the operations of the United States security agency-


John George Diefenbaker: I have read every one of them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and it certainly disposes of any suspicion that he has attempted to leave in our minds that we have been criticizing these agencies. I now quote from page 3359 of Hansard, which contains the text of the short note which we addressed to the United States government some weeks ago, as follows:
The United States government is aware that the appropriate security agencies of the two governments have in the past exchanged security information on a reciprocal basis.
This reciprocal exchange of information has assisted substantially in maintaining the security of our two countries, and the Canadian government is not suggesting that it has been improperly used by the security agencies in the United States with which this exchange takes place.
Surely that disposes of the inferences which have been made by the hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Read the next paragraph.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very well.
Nevertheless the Canadian government must take every precaution which lies within its power to protect Canadian citizens from the danger of this information falling into the hands of persons who might use it without any sense of responsibility or fairness, or regard for the rights of Canadian citizens, within the jurisdiction of Canada. In view of the conduct of congressional investigations affecting Canadians, and because of its responsibility for taking every precaution in its power to protect

Canadian citizens, the Canadian government requests that, in the reciprocal exchange of security information, the United States government give its assurance that none of its agencies or departments will pass such information to any committee, body or organization in the United States over which the executive branch of the United States government has no executive control, without the express consent of the Canadian government in each case.
Does that satisfy the hon. gentleman?


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I was going to read, because it is the very antithesis of what you say.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased if I could say a few words in support of the hon. member for Dauphin who spoke yesterday on behalf of the retail merchants of Canada. I feel that he spoke on behalf of a group which has been sadly neglected in recent years, a group which is very important, not only in the community life of Canada but in the community life of most of the European countries as well. For centuries this group has made devoted efforts toward the development of the country to which it belongs. Napoleon referred to the English at one time as a nation of shopkeepers, little realizing that those same shopkeepers were capable of taking up arms and bringing him to his knees at Waterloo.
In Canada shopkeepers have been pioneers in our communities; they have laid the foundation of every town and city in Canada; it was their unstinted service and money which helped to plan the future of this country, and I well remember times of distress when the small retailers became not only merchants but philanthropists, giving credit to all who needed their services. Many merchants became bankrupt in the process because of their generosity, and we have to thank our small merchants in Canada for the help they gave to farm workers and others during the most trying period of economic difficulty.
In every town in Canada hon. members will find evidence of the pioneering spirit of this group. Often its members serve on city councils and help to build up public institutions-fire halls, arenas and other types of building. There are countless instances of good work done by the retail merchants of Canada. Unfortunately these very people are now facing difficulties which are not of their own creation, difficulties which may lead to their total extinction as merchants in Canada. As I say, through a condition which is no fault of theirs, they are at the mercy of large corporate retailers. I, in common with other hon. members, have received a letter from the

Retail Merchants Association drawing our attention to this serious situation, and I would like to quote from it:
During the last ten years a condition has been developing in Canada which is rapidly approaching the point where a few large corporations are gaining a stranglehold on the retail trade of our country. Unless there is fast legislative action to counteract this trend, small business, the mainstay of free enterprise and effective competition, may be elbowed out of existence.
We have seen similar developments already in the automobile and gasoline industries. The letter goes on to say:
The fact is that competition between the large corporate retailer and the independent retailer is unequal in our present system. The reason for this is that the large corporation has access to millions of dollars in the stock and bond market, which is quite beyond the reach of the small merchant.
The results of this inequality are clearly visible in every Canadian city today. The corporate or chain outlet has vast, new, expensive buildings, parking lots and equipment. The independent merchant is found in old buildings, and with out-of-date equipment.
I bring this matter to the attention of the house because I think that the request which the retail merchants are making is a very fair one. I am not opposed to large outlets; there is a place for them, but there is also definitely a place for the small merchant in Canada. It seems to me that we are justified in advancing loans to farmers for rehabilitation, and I believe we would be justified in extending this principle to the small merchants who are now making this request through their retailers association.
Many farmers, as we know, have been rescued from an embarrassing financial situation by the Canadian Farm Loan Act and I think the small merchant who is now in difficulty deserves access to this same financial service in order that he may rehabilitate himself. The minister already has a copy of the letter from which I have quoted. In drawing this matter to the attention of the government I urge that consideration be given immediately to enabling these independent small merchants to have a chance to survive and to carry on the excellent work they have done in the past in helping to build up the institutions we now enjoy.


John Borden Hamilton: I was thinking as I listened to the debate this afternoon that at least some of the words I have used in the House of Commons in connection with the budget were coming true. At that time I said it was obviously the intention of the government to make this session the quietest on record so that nothing would detract from the effectiveness of their appeal to the people of this country, but I felt their hope in this regard would be very short lived. I think that what we have heard this afternoon
Interim Supply
is an indication that no matter what else the government may say, they have not been in control of the foreign affairs of this country, and there should be no surprise at this stage that such issues as are being raised today should be brought up in the House of Commons because the government has totally abdicated its authority to conduct foreign affairs on behalf of the people of this country.
I will not spend any longer in connection with that matter. More than once in the last few days we have been concerned with a very striking chain of events in connection with the activities of another of our cabinet ministers. I am thinking back to the time of the death of the late Sir James Dunn and the various phases we have gone through since that time in connection with his estate. You will recall that approximately a year ago this very important problem was raised in the House of Commons, the question of whether an executor of an estate of this kind should be entitled to hold the office of executor as well as being one of Her Majesty's ministers. Had the government taken the advice given to them at that time I think there would have been no need for the several speeches that have been made in the house dealing with the chain of events which have since taken place. As a matter of fact, in introducing my remarks a year ago, I said that I approached the job more in sorrow than in anger.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nuts!


John Borden Hamilton: I think that at the time the minister in question undoubtedly had the opportunity to renounce his position as an executor of this estate and might have avoided the stories which we are reading in the press and hearing in the house. As a matter of fact, we have a situation now where this large corporation is being sold to at least two companies which are and have been directly dependent to a great extent on the government. It is an indication that whatever has happened in the government's dealings with them it has helped to place them in a position to acquire a controlling interest in this large company.
To get back to the issue of the ethics involved in a matter of this kind, I might refer, as was done last year, to Jennings on Cabinet Government. At page 86 Professor Jenningr quotes words of Mr. Asquith when taking part in the debates of the House of Commons at Westminster, at which time Mr. Asquith said:
The first and the most obvious is that ministers ought not to enter into any transaction whereby their private pecuniary interests might, even conceivably, come into conflict with their public duty.

Interim Supply
. . . Again, no minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information, information that has come to him as a minister, for his own private profit or for that of his friends. Further, no minister ought to allow or to put himself into a position to be tempted to use his official influence in support of any scheme or in furtherance of any contract in regard to which he has an undisclosed private interest. . . . Again, no minister ought to accept from persons who are in negotiation with or seeking to enter into contractual or proprietary or pecuniary relations with the state any kind of favour. ... I will add a further proposition, which I am not sure has been completely formulated, though it has no doubt been adumbrated in the course of these debates, and that is that ministers should scrupulously avoid speculative investments in securities as to which, from their special means of early or confidential information, they have or may have an advantage over other people in anticipating market changes.
Professor Jennings goes on to say:
These he stated as "rules of obligation." He added that there were certain "rules of prudence" which had never been formulated and which could hardly be put on precise or universal terms. "One of those rules is that in these matters such persons should carefully avoid all transactions which can give colour or countenance to the belief that they are doing anything which the rules of obligation forbid."
May I repeat that last sentence?
One of those rules is that in these matters such persons should carefully avoid all transactions which can give colour or countenance to the belief that they are doing anything which the rules of obligation forbid.
In the chain of events this matter came before the house again when the Prime Minister indicated that a large amount of succession duties coming from this estate was to provide the basic amount for the establishment of the Canada council. Subsequently we have been informed that this large corporation is now passing into the hands of three corporations, two of which are Canadian, one of which has probably received the greatest amount of government work in connection with its operations of any company in Canada and the other has been the recipient over the past few years of at least half a million dollars a year by way of subsidy under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
It seems to me that many questions are being left unanswered in this connection. As I recall it, the minister stated last year that he was only going to act as a partial executor of the estate, that he was only interested in one phase, what might happen in connection with the disposition of the control of Algoma Steel. I think it was pointed out to him at that time that it was an impossibility to separate the responsibilities he had as an executor into watertight compartments and that obviously a question of ethics was involved here which might have serious repercussions in the future. I should like to refer

to Widdifleld on Executors' Accounts. At page 37, dealing with the duties of an executor, he has this to say:
The first duty of a trustee, whether an executor, an administrator or a guardian, is to acquaint himself, as soon as possible, with the nature and circumstances of the trust property; to make a complete inventory thereof; to obtain, where possible, the possession or control of the trust property to himself, and, subject to the provisions of the will, get in the trust money invested on insufficient or hazardous security.
Here is the duty of all executors and trustees. At page 129, in dealing with succession duty-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman but it is five o'clock and the house will proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I have been informed that there are a number of hon. members who would like to express their views on the three private bills, so many, in fact, that I rather doubt that any bill would carry during the one hour period. For that reason I therefore suggest that we might devote the hour to a continuation of this debate. I understand it is a fact that opposition members feel that because of their views on some of the private bills, in fact all three, they could devote the whole hour, and under these circumstances we might just as well employ that time for this debate if we are not going to make any progress in respect of the private bills.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The leader of the house will realize, I think, that the committee of supply as such would not have the right to set aside the rules by unanimous consent. Therefore, it being five o'clock I propose to move into the house with the Speaker in the chair.
Progress reported.



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it agreed by unanimous consent that all business reserved for this hour shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: business for the private bills hour having been stood by consent, the house will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

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



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the motion of Mr. Harris:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,651,674,050, being one-half of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958. laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $7,298,566.67, being one-third of the total of the amounts of items 52, 57, 116, 117, 131, 132, 156, 248, 281, 322, 324, 328, 355, 399 and 460 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $697,069.25, being one-quarter of the total of the amounts of items 153, 158, 252 and 397 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $3,640,012.17, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 16, 71, 134, 217, 218, 219, 227, 361, 364, 391, 422, 428 and 432 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $2,383,999.92, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 28, 69, 129, 221, 223, 224, 233, 234, 300, 321, 333, 424, 425, 430 and 503 of the said estimates;
in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $9,635,679.50, being one-half of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $16,166.67, being one-third of the total of the amounts of items 626 and 654 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $208,333.34, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 621 and 640 of the said estimates;
and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $7,000,000, being two-sevenths of the total of the amount of item 663 set forth in the further supplementary estimates (1) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $30,555,555.56, being four-ninths of the total of the amounts of items 664, 665, 666, 667, 669 and 670 of the said estimates:	and a sum of
$1,000,000, being two-thirds of the total of the amounts of item 668 of the said estimates, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1958.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I had just started to refer to page 129 of Widdifield on Executors' Accounts where, in dealing with the duty of an executor in connection with succession duty, he has this to say:
If the estate of the deceased is liable to succession duty the personal representatives must ascertain and pay this duty before the payment of legacies or distribution.
Here is a direct responsibility which the minister had assumed as an executor of an estate. I submit there is no way that he could avoid the responsibilities which are set out for an executor and trustee. One of those duties was to ascertain the amount of the succession duty which was owing in this particular case and to see that the sum was paid.
I would say as well that one of the duties would be to negotiate with the department as to the value of the shares in question. I would set off those responsibilities against the responsibilities of a minister of the crown as set out by Professor Jennings in
Interim Supply
the quotations which I have just given. It seems to me that there is a direct conflict of interest. Had the occasion been used by the minister a year ago to renounce the appointment under the will of the late James Dunn there would have been no reason for the questions that are required now because of the apparent sale of this company to two other companies, in which the minister quite obviously has an interest. I am not saying he has a financial interest, but an interest to see that these companies are in action and that they are prepared to carry out their work so far as the defence production of the country is concerned.
As a matter of fact the very dollars which have gone into the contracts in one instance are the same dollars which will go to provide the purchase price in order that the sale by the executors of the James Dunn estate might take place on an advantageous basis. I say this was a serious breach of ethics in connection with the responsibility that the minister has to the crown and to this estate as one of its executors. I think that the ordinary provisions which apply in connection with the disclosure of information so far as the succession duties department is concerned have now gone by the boards. As a matter of fact, I think they had partially gone by the boards when the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decided to inform the house as to the amount of funds which were to come from this estate in order to establish the Canada Council.
At this time I think we have a right to ask some of these questions. Has any succession duty been paid by the Dunn estate? Has any extension of time been granted to the Dunn estate for the payment of duties? What method has been used to value the shares of Algoma stock held by the estate? Were any representations made to the Minister of National Revenue concerning the value of the shares of the Dunn estate, or any other aspect of the matter, by any minister of the government or by any director of any crown corporation? Did Mr. Barrington, president of Polymer, take any part in the negotiations for the sale of Algoma stock to McIntyre Porcupine mine, before or after his appointment as a director of that company?
Those are questions to which I feel the people of Canada are entitled to answers. Unless there is a full disclosure of the facts of this case there will always be a lingering doubt in the minds of the public as to whether or not there has been a conflict of interest, and whether or not it has been resolved in favour of the public of the country. This is only part of the reason for

Interim Supply
the concern of the press and the public in connection with this matter. Had we not reached a stage where so little attention was being paid to the truth in this house there would not be the same concern evidenced on all sides. We trace back the history of the answers we have received from the minister in the past in connection with some of the debates and we can easily see that the memory of the minister is not exactly what it used to be. I think there should be a full disclosure of all the aspects of the handling of this matter and the handling of the sale.
I think back to the pipe line debate when we were told that the pipe was all stacked outside the pipe mills in the United States. I think back to the explanation of the time for financing before the board of transport commissioners, and the two answers that we got. I think back to the time when the question was raised about options in connection with the pipe line bill. Yes, and more recently, I think back to the time when the question was raised as to the letters to the C.B.C., the personal nature of them and later the official nature. It seems to me that unless we are prepared to take the attitude that the rule book of this house might as well be thrown out of the window we are entitled to answers in connection with these specific questions raised in connection with the handling of this particular matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I have been attacked. Do I have no right of reply?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I just recognized the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry, sir. This afternoon the tone of the next election campaign is being set, a smear campaign. I have been attacked by men who so far as I know have never carried any responsibility in the world. I have been carrying fairly heavy responsibilities in this house for 22 years, and prior to that very heavy responsibilities in private practice for 20 years. So far as I know no one has successfully attacked my record in connection with either period.
I made complete disclosure of my position when this matter was raised earlier. Sir James Dunn and I had been friends for a great many years. When I found I was made an executor under his will my first inclination was to withdraw. His widow urged me not to do that. She looked upon me as a man she had known through my association with her husband and she was most anxious that I would continue. I made it clear then that I would not take any part

whatever in settling the amount of the tax. There were four other executors, one of them the solicitor for the estate. If there is any question as to whether or not that was carried out, I am sure the Minister of National Revenue will say whether I ever spoke to him or to any of his staff in that connection. I made it clear from the beginning that I had no financial interest in any asset of the estate. The principal asset was shares in the Algoma Steel Company. The Algoma Steel Company has its own president and its board of directors. I have had no part or influence in the management of Algoma, as must be obvious to those in the house who understand corporate practice. I am excluding the two members who have spoken because evidently they do not so understand.
At the time I said one of the factors that induced me to continue was that I did not want to see control of this company pass outside of Canada. I think I have been influential in preventing any trend in that direction. Offers have been made for shares that have been rejected on my suggestion that ownership of the kind contemplated would not be good for Canada. The hon member has asked certain questions. The first was, how was the value of the shares fixed? It was fixed as the quoted value of the shares on the day Sir James died, in accordance with the law. The next question was, has there ever been any argument between the estate and the taxation division as to the amount of tax? The answer is no. To the best of my knowledge after the considerable time which was needed in an estate that extended from Canada, to England and several countries to collect the necessary information, the assessment was made. It was made, I think, about a year after the death- perhaps that might not be exact. In the meantime I had nothing to do with the management of the estate in any way, shape or manner. However, in order to pay the succession duties it was necessary to liquidate a certain number of the shares of Algoma as well as other assets owned by the estate.
Now my hon. friends have read in the paper about control of Algoma passing. Sir James had control; all the shares in his estate represented control. The shares which are being sold to pay the taxes certainly do not represent control, and since they are being sold to more than one buyer-I do not know how much information I am entitled to give here about the estate but I can say that there is more than one buyer for these shares, and no buyer has control or anything like control. I think that is what any fair-minded person would hope would happen to the Algoma shares. In future no single bloc of shares will represent control, and there will

be no interference with the management of the company from that source. I have listened very carefully to the repetition, which every cabinet minister knows, about the ethics of a cabinet minister. I assure you that nothing in my relationship with the Dunn estate has violated that situation in any way, shape or manner.
I have taken no action which did not relate directly to the Dunn estate and no action which adversely affected any interest of the government whatever.
The hon. member had certain other questions. Perhaps he would ask them one by one and I would be glad to answer them. I have answered the one about how the value of the shares was fixed.


John Borden Hamilton: In connection with the valuation of the shares, does the minister know whether any account was taken as to the value because of the fact that no dividends had been paid on the stock? Is it a fact that they jumped tremendously in value immediately after the death?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know where they jumped. Rumours have been circulating. The law provides that the value of a share for tax purposes is the value at the time of death. In my opinion the valuation that was placed on the shares was the valuation required by law, not only that but probably a pretty optimistic value of them. However that valuation has never been questioned by the executors. The assessment was made by the tax department of the government and it was accepted by the executors. What is your next question?


John Borden Hamilton: Was the increased value of the stock subsequent to death sufficient to pay the succession duties?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir; nowhere near it.


John Borden Hamilton: Did Mr. Barrington, the most recent appointee to the board of McIntyre Porcupine, take part in any of the negotiations re the sale of the stock?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir, he did not. Mr. Barrington was invited to go on the board, as I understand it, about three weeks ago. He has been in western Canada since then and I am fairly sure that he has never attended a board meeting of the company, if that is any of my hon. friend's business.
We will remember this, you know.


John Borden Hamilton: We are very interested and we are entitled to an answer. Is he still a director; does he intend to remain one?
Interim Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not communicated with him since I found out that he was a director and for the reason that he has not been readily available. Whether he intends to remain a director or not will depend on other discussions we have when I am able to get in touch with him.


John Borden Hamilton: In connection with the dual position that the minister does occupy-


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no dual position there, my friend. Suppose I had been a beneficiary of the estate. I would have had much more to do with it then than I do now. What would I do, renounce the inheritance?


John Borden Hamilton: I would say you would have no choice of action then, but you do in this case.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps so.


John Borden Hamilton: As a matter of fact, the law is very clear. We do not expect testators to rule succeeding generations from the grave. There was no particular obligation to remain on the job.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No?


John Borden Hamilton: It is not an
excuse for avoiding the ethical position which is involved in the two quotations which I have read to the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I have my own ethical position and I would not change it for my hon. friend's, the little I know about his past. I will keep my own.


John Borden Hamilton: I might get an answer to this question. Since the particular job in connection with the succession duties has now been accomplished, does the minister intend to remain an executor of this estate, which I understand still controls Algoma Steel, and remain a member of the cabinet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the estate has had no voice in the affairs of Algoma Steel since the death of Sir James Dunn. I know something about the views of the executors. The position of the executors is that they shall pay the taxes, distribute the assets and retire, and that is in progress at the moment. The newspaper accounts of what is happening are not accurate. I am not in a position to make any announcement at this time. It is not my purpose to make an announcement, but I intend to carry out my duties of executor to the extent that when the taxes are paid I will leave the distribution of the assets to others. Nevertheless, I intend to see that this estate remains in hands which I believe are

Interim Supply
capable of seeing that a great Canadian asset is preserved in that way, or at least not disturbing the situation. What is my hon. friend's other question? Let us have them all.


John Borden Hamilton: You have
answered them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You made your speech this morning.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You did not answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why should I?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because I happen to be a member of parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is perhaps the only vestige of a reason. My hon. friend has been pouring out insinuations and his sidekick there has been trying to get information for brokers in Winnipeg. You have been trying to put out rumours that will affect the market, and I am not interested; that is all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Keep your head.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ask any questions you like; you will get no answer from me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I thank the minister for his permission to ask him some questions? The minister questioned whether it was any business of the hon. member for York West as to whether Mr. Barrington is a director of McIntyre Porcupine. May I ask him whether it is not part of our business as members of parliament to ask questions about a full-time salaried head of a crown corporation. Is it not our business to know of the outside business activities of such a person?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the business of a certain type of mind; but I might point out there is no law of the land that interferes with Mr. Barrington being a director of any corporation he likes. However I may say that I am going to discuss it with him, and what his future action will be will depend on the nature of our discussion. However my hon. friend can ask questions and throw in insinuations. If he can show that anyone has violated the law of the land in connection with Mr. Barrington's appointment let him go to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if the minister would like it I can show him that in the Civil Service Act there is a provision which prohibits any deputy head of a department engaging in any outside employment, and I would suggest that the head of a crown corporation has a status that is similar to that of a deputy head.


James Joseph McCann: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not trying to say that the Civil Service Act by statute prohibits it. The statute does prohibit people in comparable position; the statute does prohibit it in the case of Mr. Gordon, the president of the Canadian National Railways, and I suggest on the same basis that a person who is the head of a crown corporation like Polymer should not be engaging in such outside business activities. And I suggest-although the minister may use the word "insinuation" as often as he wants to-that it is our right as members of parliament to ask questions about the outside business activities of the heads of crown corporations.
May I ask the minister another question? I realize I cannot claim an answer but at least he has given me his kind permission to ask the question. When he said that he had not interfered in any way with the management of Algoma Steel, was that based on any statement to that effect that has been made by me today or by the member for York West? Did either of us say that the minister had interfered in the management of Algoma Steel? Did we not base our remarks on the fact that the minister has certain duties as an executor of the Dunn estate?
Has he not admitted that he has tried to carry out his duties as an executor of the Dunn estate? Is it not true that when I referred to this company this morning, and on a previous day, I spoke of the minister's duties as an executor of the Dunn estate? I did not say he was interfering in the management of Algoma Steel, but I did say that his duties as an executor of the Dunn estate conflict, in my view, with his duties as a minister of the crown.
The minister has admitted today that he has carried out those duties. He has said that he is not yet in a position to make an announcement, but I presume that when the shares in the Dunn estate are disposed of that he, either by himself or in company with his fellow executors, will announce to whom those shares have been sold. I suggest that when there are shares to the number that there are in the Dunn estate- the press reports say there are 700,000 shares in Algoma Steel-the disposition of shares of that volume worth $90 million more or less at today's market price is something that is a factor in the Canadian economy and that we as members of parliament-even I as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, despite the remarks the minister is making-have a right to know what the minister is doing with respect to these matters. He cannot divide himself in two and

be responsible to us only for certain activities and feel that otherwise he can do anything he wants without being responsible to the House of Commons.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a man of many interests. According to Leslie Roberts he is referred to as the minister of everything; but he is still a member of the House of Commons and has responsibilities to the members of this house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend might as well get one thing clear. The shares of Algoma Steel were disposed of by Sir James Dunn in his will and testament. The shares that are being disposed of in the market place are those shares which it is necesary to sell to liquidate the estate of Sir James Dunn and pay his taxes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister involved in the negotiations with respect to the sale of those shares?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can try to draw red herrings across this matter and he can talk about $90 million but there is no such sum involved. The hon. member can read any journal he likes and assume that is correct knowing that I cannot answer it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister intend to make an announcement after the house rises?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will I? I will not. The solicitor for the estate in due course may make an announcement about the number of shares sold and who bought them but it is not part of my duty as one of five executors to make any announcement whatever about the affairs of the estate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister involved in the negotiations with respect to the sale of those shares?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have discussed the matter with my fellow executors which I am bound to do but I have not discussed the subject with anybody else.


John Borden Hamilton: What job did you do?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I carried out my duties.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, just a word here. I appreciate the discussion that has been taking place in the last little while. I am always interested in matters which are of public interest and which affect the efficiency of government and the people of Canada. In a sense I rise at this time in self
Interim Supply
defence in relation to this particular matter and I think hon. members will appreciate what I am referring to in a moment.
It occurs to me that there has been more witch-hunting in the last few weeks in this house than hon. members in this group have ever been accused of at any time. It seems to me that when an hon. member desires to look under the bed to see if a few dollars have been lost it is said that he is doing it because he is a responsible member of parliament but if one rises in his seat with a firm desire to retain the security of this nation to ensure that it will not be turned over to communists then he is accused of witchhunting.
We in this group were accused from every side of this house of witch-hunting. The other day the hon. member for Moose Mountain surely thought he had detected something of a witch in a closet and he began making his accusation by innuendo. However, that was considered all right. He was considered a responsible member of parliament whose duty it was to look into that matter.


Alfred Claude Ellis: One of your colleagues said he was going to raise the matter.


James Joseph McCann: Come on, Wimpy.


Ernest George Hansell: The matter was investigated and the whole thing was cleared up but it was not considered that that was witchhunting.
The other day the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose and asked the Prime Minister if he had written to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. You know some day someone is going to write a little history of the House of Commons and they are going to make a comedy of this thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, just to keep the record straight-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Obey the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit me just to keep the record straight? It is perfectly true that I asked many other ministers that question but I did not happen to ask the question of the Prime Minister. I believe that was done by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I admit I had something to do with seeing that the rest of the ministers were asked that question but I did not happen to ask it of the Prime Minister.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps my hon. friend has a point but it is a very small one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just the point of accuracy, that is all.

Interim Supply


Ernest George Hansell: All right, I will accept the correction. What happened in the case I referred to? The matter was pursued further and every last minister of the crown was asked if he had correspondence with the C.B.C.; but of course that was not considered witch-hunting. It was done-


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the interests of the integrity of the C.B.C.


Ernest George Hansell: Oh yes, in the interests of the integrity of the C.B.C. The strange thing about it, however, from the point of view I adopt was that each minister of the crown popped up like a little boy and said, "No, not guilty. I didn't do it. Not I." The only sensible answer that came from the government benches was that which came from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who said, "Yes, I talked to these men and I told them what programs I liked and those I didn't like and I will continue to do so."
It is obvious from these illustrations that one can rise in this house and try to look under the bed to see if he can find something of that nature and it is not considered witchhunting but if one stands in this corner of the house with a firm desire to be patriotic and loyal to Canada and see that Canada remains Canadian it is immediately said that he is witch-hunting.
I sympathized with the Prime Minister when he was undergoing the grilling the other day. He may have written the letter in innocence and perhaps he is in a position where he should recognize that he should exert care in such matters but I believe he did it because he genuinely felt that Canada was being put in a bad light. If Canada is put in a bad light by anyone Canadians should make a protest regardless of who they are.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose the other day-he may want to correct me on a point of accuracy again- and held up a newspaper bearing a large headline and said to the Prime Minister, "I want to know if the Prime Minister thinks that this sort of thing should be done."
He was doing the very opposite of what he was doing in respect to the C.B.C. He was bringing the Prime Minister into the picture and asking his influence in the control of the press.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As long as it is advertising the member for Winnipeg North Centre-that is the purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nonsense from both sides.


Ernest George Hansell: As I say, it is all right to search for things of one nature and you can do it because you are a responsible

member of parliament, but if you search of something for another nature, you are a witch-hunter. All that might be done of the one nature will not turn this country over to the communists. So that I suppose we will have to go on being branded as witch-hunters when we desire to keep Canada clean and build a great nation for Canadians pursuant in our free and democratic way of life, thereby making something out of Canada as a real democracy. I do not think I have anything more to say along that line, but I thought a word perhaps was necessary at this time; I do not know what the members have been talking about today-there may be something to it-but if there is something to it my thought is this: Why do not these men make specific charges-


Walter Edward Harris: Too dangerous.


Ernest George Hansell: -and have them investigated-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We brought out things even the Prime Minister did not know; he had to admit that.


Ernest George Hansell: -instead of all these hints and so on. I do not believe in innuendoes that cause people to think that anyone is dishonest. I do not believe in innuendoes that would cause people to think that a man is disloyal.


Mr. Winch:: In view of what I am going to say there may be those who think I am placing myself in an impossible position, but I believe I have always had the courage to say what I believe, how I think and why I reach a certain conclusion. It was my understanding that the house was to prorogue this afternoon or this evening so I have been most interested in what certainly is the last day of my first term in the House of Commons. I have been most interested in what has been said. I sincerely believe the questions asked by the member for Winnipeg North Centre were logical, reasonable and acceptable questions.
I want to say this, however, that the statements made by the hon. member for York West were something which I never hoped to hear because, to me, they were character assassination. I have been in opposition here and in Victoria for some 24 years to policies with which I completely disagree. I hope that we can at all times carry on our opposition in politics on a fundamental, a principle and a program basis. I do not like and I was very very sorry to hear what in my estimation was character assassination.

I have been in opposition to the Minister of Trade and Commerce all down the line; I have fought him more than once. In the four years I have been here time after time he has been completely wrong in my opinion; he is a dictator and has no right in a democratic parliament, but at no time would I have said that he is dishonest. As I have said, I agree with the questions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; they were straight questions, but with respect to the charge that because a man happens to be named as an executor he would do what it has been inferred he has done, I say that is not the way in which in almost a quarter of a century of public life, I have played politics.
I say that this afternoon to me was one of the roughest days of my life in a democratic parliament because of the words of the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and the words of the leader of the Social Credit group. Carefully as I listened, I could only come to one conclusion: That irrespective of what they have said before, and irrespective of the opinions of the people of Canada, they were trying to create the impression that perhaps our ambassador to Cairo was many years ago associated in some manner with a communist.
Now these are the last words I am going to say at this session-I will be back and 1 will say more at the next session. The member, I think for Peace River, talked about witchhunting; now I am not going to do any witchhunting but it is positively disgusting to listen to the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the kind of talk we have heard this afternoon from the leaders of the other two opposition parties creating at least the impression of a defence of what has taken place in the committee of investigation in the United States.
If association makes a man a communist, then I would like to ask the Socreds what they are going to do about a cabinet minister of British Columbia who 20 years ago was in association with an unemployment association on which communists were represented? Does that make him a communist? I would like to know what the Socreds are going to do about their nominee running in the federal election, who to my knowledge was working with me on other bodies on which the communists were also represented. Does it make the Socred minister in British Columbia a communist, because 24 years ago he worked with the unemployed and with the communists. Does any association with them in those days make him a communist? I say the answer is no.
I know both these Socreds. One is a cabinet minister and the other is a federal candidate in this coming election in the city of Vancouver. From what has been said,
Interim Supply
through having associated with communists they must be communists. I say that they are not. We need to recognize that in the course of our lives all of us meet and work with a lot of organizations. The truth of a man's position is his party, his loyalty, his principles and his program, and I regret that this afternoon even the slightest question has been raised with regard to the associations years ago of a man who, I regret to say, is now dead. I regret that in any way at all there should have been character assassination by any member of the House of Commons or any party.
In conclusion, when we leave here today I hope and anticipate that in the next two months we will fight on program and on principle, and that is the meaning, to me, of democracy.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I would be doing less than my duty if I did not protest very strongly against the words used by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat with regard to my colleague from York West.
The hon. member said that he thought the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were justified. My colleague also asked questions in a situation which was difficult and perplexing; I think it is difficult and perplexing to us all. The minister has answered those questions, but I submit there was nothing which could properly be called character assassination at all; it was a series of questions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What else was he trying to do?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They were questions
which the minister took and answered. That is my opinion, and I give it for what it is worth.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


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


Walter Edward Harris: That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, the sum of $1,714,109,433.08 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Interim Supply


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


Walter Edward Harris: That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, the following sums $62,536,262.84 and $520,833.34, respectively, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister would explain.


Walter Edward Harris: This represents the remainder of the Post Office vote. Having voted the appropriate percentage of the estimates in the preceding resolution this will mean that the whole of the post office vote has been provided for, as those particular items in the estimates were carried earlier in the session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it the situation is that when parliament re-assembles in the fall, whatever government may be in power, we will have to deal with the estimates of all the other departments with the exception of the post office? The post office will have been taken care of until the end of the fiscal year?


Walter Edward Harris: I think I can hazard a legal opinion, and say yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is an undertaking which is usually given at the time of the passing of interim estimates. Has the minister given it?


Walter Edward Harris: As I said yesterday, I was about to rise at the opening of the discussion on the resolution, but the Leader of the Opposition seemed to feel he ought to take precedence. I would at that time have given the usual undertaking. I have been thinking about it since and I have noticed that in their comments a good many hon. members who have spoken in the course of this debate assume that my undertaking will be honoured by my colleagues in the fall. But I will give it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is nobody else to give it at the moment.


An hon. Member:: Nobody else is likely to honour it, either.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I have paid some attention to what has been said, and more than one speaker in each party has spoken of what this government will do in the fall. And I therefore give the following undertaking: The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to
[Mr. Harris.)
criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in the committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as the result of the passing of this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 418, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a second time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are there copies of the bill?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: By leave, shall this bill be read the third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 419, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall this bill, by leave, be read the third time now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the other place will be a little while considering the bills we have just passed for the appropriation of certain sums of money, and we have one item left to consider, that having to do with the international atomic energy convention. If it should be the desire of the house to deal with it we could continue now or if that is not possible we could continue at eight o'clock until such time as we have word from the other place that they have passed the appropriation bills.


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest that we take it at eight o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Mr. Harkness:: It is two minutes to six now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that I do now leave the chair and that the house resume its activities at eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa,
April 12, 1957
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, April 12, 1957, at nine p.m., for the purpose of proroguing the fifth session of the twenty-second parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the statute of the international atomic energy agency signed by Canada at New York on October 26, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Nanaimo said what he wished to say on this motion when he spoke this afternoon in committee of supply.
Atomic Energy


Mr. R. W. Mitchell (London):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to occupy the time of the house at this significant time, but I do wish to say one or two things about this matter. They are points which concern me because I feel these matters should have been fully disclosed, and could well have been dealt with by a committee of this house. What I have to say is largely speculation.
As a whole I agree, and I am sure all of us agree, with the body of this motion. It is a fact, however, that many of us are groping in the dark. There are things we should know and upon which we should have been informed. Those things could have been very properly brought to our attention during the sittings of a committee of this house. One thing that concerns me has to do with ratification. I must admit that I shall have to ask my genial friend, the minister who is piloting this measure, some questions. Those questions could more properly have been asked in a committee of this house.
The one point which concerns me most has to do with ratification and when the instrument of ratification is going to be delivered. At the moment it is my understanding, and I ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong, that the only countries which have delivered instruments of ratification are the U.S.S.R., Egypt and Guatemala. This leads me to think that if the Canadian instrument of ratification is delivered at an untimely or early date we might find ourselves associated entirely with powers with whom we do not see eye to eye in so far as world affairs are concerned. I would hope that the minister could assure us that this instrument would not be deposited at a time which manifestly could embarrass Canada in its associations.
I think we all agree that the purpose of this measure is a broadly humanitarian one. We all hope that at some time this matter can be resolved amongst all the nations of the world. But at the moment we have certain ideas on the subject and other nations have other ideas. I should like to ask the minister also what effect this will have on our own atomic energy program. What effect will this have an our sales of uranium? Is this something to which we can look forward as a means of increasing our trade abroad or is this something which will hinder our trade and the limits within which we made trade?
I have no further comments to make. I do not wish to prolong the argument but I am simply restating what I have said and what others who have spoken ahead of me have said, that this was singularly a subject which could well have been discussed in detail by a committee of this house.

Atomic Energy


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this measure?


Howard Charles Green: Could we have a reply from the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe I need to add anything to the statement which I made the other day in the form of preliminary observations. As my hon. friend said, the objectives of this agency are such as to commend themselves to every section of this house. The purpose of this measure is to accept the proposal first made by the President of the United States in 1953 at the United Nations, namely that there should be set up an agency to provide for the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Under the traditions of this parliament a convention of this sort -although the executive has the power of ratification-is proceeded with before that ratification is given effect to by a resolution of parliament. It is because we are about to dissolve that in order to give effect to our subsequent deposit of the instrument of ratification and, conforming with custom that we are now asking parliament to approve this resolution so as to enable the government of Canada to formally submit its instrument of ratification.
My hon. friend has said that the only countries while ratified are the Soviet union, Egypt and Guatemala. I am not aware that Egypt has ratified, but I may be in error on that. It is true that the Soviet union and Guatemala have. Guatemala, of course, is not an unfriendly country, and I think my hon. friend would recognize that is the case. So far as the Soviet union is concerned, it was the wish and the effort of the original negotiating group of eight countries, of which Canada was one, that in order to make this agency fully effective the Soviet union, as an atomic energy country, should be included.
I am advised that the United States will be ratifying the treaty shortly. I just cannot say whether or not our ratification will be submitted before or after that formal act on the part of the United States, but I offer as a likelihood that our formal act would take place after the United States had deposited its instrument. I could not make that as a positive statement because I do not know. However I can say that we have been closely in touch with the United States in this matter and I do know that the United States intends to ratify as well.


Robert Weld Mitchell: May I ask the
minister a question? I can foresee the possibility of the 18 ratifying nations containing a majority of powers or nations with whom we are not in sympathy. My question would be simply this. Will the government use its powers now granted to it to make sure that they are not embarrassed by having entered into an instrument of ratification and deposited it at a time when this convention could come into effect and be under the control of unfriendly powers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend may he assured of that. In addition to the necessity of observing the traditional practice of our parliament so far as a resolution preceding ratification is concerned, the exigencies of the situation are that while there is now in being a preparatory commission which is now carrying out its tasks, nevertheless signatory governments are proceeding to ratification of the statute which will come into force only after some 18 powers, as my hon. friend has just mentioned, have deposited their instruments of ratification; but it is significant that before the ratifications of these 18 powers can be effected, at least three of the following countries must have ratified:	the United
Kingdom, the United States, Canada, France and the Soviet union. Therefore unless three of those five countries of the 18 have submitted their instruments of ratification the agency does not come into being.
On the matter of trade, I can only say that we must look at the long-term prospects of the agency. It would be wrong to attribute to this agency available functions and achievements in the too immediate future. At the moment I can do no more than refer to the objectives stated in article III of the statute, and indicate first of all that the preparatory commission is only now preparing recommendations as to the initial program for consideration by the first general conference. It has, however, been the government's position throughout that the agency must exercise due caution at the outset to ensure proper planning and sound financing.
My hon. friend will have noted, undoubtedly, that in section 5 of article III provision is made for the supervision and control of fissionable material in such a way as not to further the military interests of any particular country or group.


Robert Weld Mitchell: May I ask one
further question of the minister. I recognize what he has said as being a fact and I, for my part and I believe all members, agree with the objectives which this convention has. My worry is this. If you have 18 signatories

who have filed, it is possible that 16 of those signatories could be communist satellites and they could then proceed to the work which is outlined in this statute. My question therefore has to do with the time at which Canada deposits her ratification. I would hope, and I am sure the minister would agree, that the ratification would not be deposited at a time when it would embarrass the western powers.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend may be assured of that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall we suspend until 8.55?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: I was going to suggest that perhaps we could suspend until five minutes to nine. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am reminded that the private bills which we passed over at five o'clock are still on the order paper, and if we had the time and the inclination now we could discuss them, although I notice that there is not a full hour left before it is expected we shall be summoned to the other place. However, I think if any hon. member feels that we ought to call them, at least this is an opportunity for them to be called.



REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to rise, if I may, in regard to certain questions on the order paper that have not been answered and, in particular,
I refer to question No. 170, which was placed on the order paper on February 18 last, dealing with orders in council passed in each of the calendar years 1955 and 1956, waiving the provisions of the Immigration Act. Will the minister say whether or not that is available, because it seems a very long time to have to wait for information such as is asked for in this question. In particular will he say whether or not orders in council and permits passed or issued followed upon requests made in respect of the individual concerned by a member of parliament or the Senate of Canada, and how many of those permits were issued on the requests of members or senators? I would ask the leader of the house as to whether an answer to that question and others are available. It seems passing strange that it should have taken so long to answer so simple a question.
12. 1957	3515
Unanswered Questions on Order Paper


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether the answer is ready. I recall the answer given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the other day when he was asked about this. I speak now only from my own experience of the department but I am quite sure than when he answered it would take a great length of time to provide the answer he was telling what was of course the truth, because the numbers of orders in council which are passed covering the admission of persons under the Immigration Act, if I recall it, form a very considerable file every day when council meets, although I am not familiar with the work since I was in that department.
In so far as the inquiry as to whether these were passed at the request of a member or a senator is concerned, my own experience has been that usually before an order in council of this kind was passed more than one member and more than one senator, and probably as many as a dozen, had requested it.


Mr. Casselman:: Why cover it up; why do you not come out with the facts?


Walter Edward Harris: Why do I not come out with the facts?


Arza Clair Casselman: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: It is pretty hard to tell whether my hon. friend is just asking for the facts in here or whether he thinks there are some other facts that are being hidden.


Arza Clair Casselman: As a matter of fact, if you look back on these questions over the years you will find a lot of information comes out that is not very satisfactory.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I shall finish by saying I shall make inquiries in the next two or three minutes. I doubt, however, whether it is ready. I do know from my own experience that it was a very rare immigration case that does not have many hon. members soliciting that action be taken on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Nevertheless it would be nice to have the records.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we suspend the sitting until 8.57 p.m.? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 8.25 p.m. the sitting was suspended until 8.57 p.m. this day.

House of Commons



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8.57 p.m.

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the traditions of a free parliament, as this parliament now ebbs to a close I wish to convey to you, sir, on behalf of those who sit to your left, the very best of good wishes for your future.
You have occupied a high and honourable position as Speaker of this parliament; a position that carries with it tremendous responsibilities under the maintenance of a free parliament in the British tradition. I say to you, sir, on behalf of those of this party, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, that with the conclusion of this parliament-as it may be expected that the next parliament will have another Speaker since we have not followed the British tradition of having a permanent Speaker in the House of Commons-may I in the most cordial and sincere manner convey to you our very best good wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and those associated with me in the C.C.F., I am happy to join in the greetings expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I imagine it would be noted as lacking in sincerity if I tried to gloss over the fact that we have had our differences during the course of this parliament, but this is not the time to say anything about those differences. It has been a pleasure for us to be members of this twenty-second parliament, presided over by one who has been interested in and a keen student of parliament and its procedures. You, sir, have been a friend to all of us in this House of Commons; you and Mrs. Beaudoin have been a gracious host and hostess and we are most happy to extend to you and to Mrs. Beaudoin our greetings at this time.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group would also like to join in the timely expressions of good will by the former two speakers and we also wish you and your wife every joy in the future.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, if I were to speak now for the party to your right and, partially, for those to your left I could only say that over the

past four years we have been happy in the choice that was made of Speaker after the 1953 election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Edward Harris: You have discharged your duties in a manner which has commended itself to a great many people although, of course, as has been said already, there have been differences of opinion. I think this is inevitable in any deliberative body because indeed persons go there for the purpose of disagreeing in order to bring about a proper result.
I do want to join with the representatives of the other parties in saying that the office of Speaker is not only that of the first commoner, it is representative of all that is best in our traditions and is something more than merely a presiding officer. It is an office of dignity and honour and one which comes to relatively few in the history of parliament. When it does come there is a mark on the man thenceforth for having been chosen for his integrity, his honesty and his impartiality, which will distinguish him for the rest of his days. Therefore, sir, I join on behalf of this party with all others in thanking you for your services during the past four years and in extending to you and to Mrs. Beaudoin our very best wishes.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Joseph Adelard Gerard Leclaire.	_	„	,, ,,
An act for the relief of Jeanne D Arc Ouellette Martin.
An act for the relief of Mary Boldovitch Mogil, otherwise known as Mary Boldovitch Mogilesky.
An act for the relief of Doris Irwin Phillips.
An act for the relief of Kathleen O'Malley Romandini.
An act for the relief of Lillian Yochalas Ostroff.
An act for the relief of Gladys Catherine Mc-Cluskey MacFarlane.
An act for the relief of Mary Kathleen Pineault Miller.
An act for the relief of Terez Lazar Jankovicz.
An act for the relief of Winona Beryl Buzan Maynard.
An act for the relief of Rose Marie Hops Zinman.
An act for the relief of Doris Velma Gardner Briggs.
An act for the relief of Pinck Kempinski.
An act for the relief of Margaret Lukis Lambert.

An act for the relief of June Angela Duyvewaardt Corse-Scott.
An act for the relief of Frank Maun James.
An act for the relief of Doris Louise Richardson Turner.
An act for the relief of Jacques Piche.
An act for the relief of Ruby Ivy Jewell Daniel.
An act for the relief of Clara Soloway Rudy Sazant.
An act for the relief of Jean Houde.
An act for the relief of Gisele Comtois Brodeur.
An act for the relief of Mitzi Aronovitch Bezonsky.
An act for the relief of Miriam Brodish Silverman.
An act for the relief of Paule Chaput Mongeau.
An act for the relief of George William Ellis.
An act for the relief of Joseph Gagne.
An act for the relief of Lois Altena Robertson Meade.
An act for the relief of Ethelynne Joan Ratcliff Gauvreau.
An act for the relief of Mary Flatman Tardif.
An act for the relief of Romeo Cadieux.
An act for the relief of Albert George Mugford.
An act for the relief of Andree Duquette Mathieu.
An act for the relief of Hans Leth.
An act for the relief of Roland Leclair.
An act for the relief of Mary Shirley Mortimer Hogan.
An act for the relief of Magda Kadar Nieder-hoffer.
An act for the relief of Edith Joyce Hawkes Balogh.
An act for the relief of Dieter Heinrich Karl Hellmann.
An, act for the relief of Marion Donnithorne McAlear.
An act for the relief of Noella Lauzon Dinelle _,,A" act	lor	the	relief	of	Gloria Helen King
Fletcher.	&
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Ronald Edward ParkerAn	act	for	the	relief	of	Elizabeth Maidie Davies
Jones.
Robertson	^	**	°f	Irene Grace Weir
Patricia CSylvesterhMcLeanf °f
RamsayCt	f°F	the	rellef	°f	Mar§aret ChapmanRotgeam1	^	^	reUe£	of	Victoire BergeronAn act for the relief of Paul Emile Doucet. a"	=Ct	Se	rellef	of	Andre Michel Allard,towvef Ur	the	r,Glief	of	TekIa Stefura Lawrentowich ' th Wlse known as Tillie Stefura Loren-
M^nette* f°r the reUef °f Joseph Fcm™d Gerard
An act for the relief Lamberg Elfstrom.
An act for the relief of Sams.
of Mary Helen Joyce Joan Gertrude Mitchell
An act for the relief of Eileen Madeleine Conrov Wettlaufer Sobie.
An act for the relief of Esther Kahn Colomay. An act for the relief of Doris Jean Lussier Strike. An act for the relief of Mary Freeman Kurtaz, otherwise known as Mary Freeman Curtis.
An. act for the relief of Gilbert Jacques La-fontame.
An act for the relief of Shirley Chernofskv Rynd.
An act for the relief of Roy Porter.
An act for the relief of Miloslawa Zaleska Boski. An act for the relief of Marie Marcelle Therese Dagenais Chesnel.
An act for the relief of Marie Louise Armand Josephine Wouters Haire.
An act for the relief of Robert Carruthers Burnside.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Leon Gass Estabrooks.
An act for the relief of Irene Myra Cohen Auerback.
An act for the relief of Brenda Iris Gibson Dun-brack.
An act for the relief of Geraldine Lenore Dowd Costigan.
An act for the relief of Eugenia Liontos Anderson.
An act for the relief of Molly Leibovitch Beane.
An act for the relief of Doris Katz Moscovitch.
An act for the relief of Jean Denis.
An act for the relief of Grayce Marion Mack Campbell.
An act for the relief of Genowefa Tkaczyk Janeczek.
An act for the relief of Marion Stewart White-house McCormick.
An act for the relief of Shirley Jean Weir Villeneuve.
An act for the relief of Herbert Marshall Connell.
An act for the relief of Earl Morrison.
An act for the relief of Joseph Roger Fernand
Masse.
An act for the relief of Anita Bernice Rosnick Joseph.
An act for the relief of Harry Nutbrown.
An act for the relief of Jack Stevenson Chalmers.
An act for the relief of Jeanette Goldman Baskin.
An act for the relief of Henry John Bushby.
An act for the relief of Yvette Roby Pinard, otherwise known as Yvette Roby Beauchemin.
An act for the relief of Marion Augusta Butler Thomas.
An act for the relief of Frederick William Cummings.
An act for the relief of Lucy Lavinia Munford Macdonald.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Eileen Worsdell Cantlie.
An act for the relief of Aurora Josephine Moretti Guimond.
An act for the relief of Samuel Goulding.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Harris Bobula.
An act for the relief of Cairlan Lawrence Earle Gagnon.
An act for the relief of Julio Donato Cianci.
An act for the relief of Mimi Frances Aberback Sherback.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Alphonsine Alain
Lachance.
An act for the relief of Mary Patricia Pierrette Bnsebois McGuire.
_ ^,n. a?£ for *he relief of Marjorie Alice Ridout Collett-White.
An act for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Catherine Russell Morgan.
An act for the relief of Anne Glassberg Craft.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph Napoleon
Hyacinthe Romeo Cote.
An act for the relief of Agathe Rose Alma Bisson Taillefer.
An act for the relief of Nick John Oncescu.
An act for the relief of Richard Supple.
An act for the relief of Joan Dorothy Beaver Mayor.
An act for the relief of Barbara Bennett Roach.
An act for the relief of William George Walker.
An act for the relief of Mary Ghetler Feldman.
An act for the relief of Joseph Bernard Guy Locas.
An act for the relief of Andreas Erdelyi.
An act for the relief of Theresa Alice Cain Martin.
An act for the relief of Millicent Felicite Dawson Stairs.
An act for the relief of Philippa Hazel Martin Foster Hill.
An act for the relief of Pauline Verdoni Di Fruscia.
An act for the relief of Lawrence Robson Moore.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Jadwiga Uzar Ziomko, otherwise known as Hedwig Uzar Ziomko.
An act for the relief of Eleonor Butkieviciute Springeliene Springelis.
An act for the relief of Harry Edward Beard. An act for the relief of Shirley Ann Doris Hobbs Cleary.
An act for the relief of Charles Richard Allen. An act for the relief of Eveline Dora Giroux
Gunhouse.
An act for the relief of Mary Weiner Brown.
An act for the relief of Simone Habel Tanguay.
An act for the relief of Jacques Petel.
An act for the relief of Wilfrid Lanouette.
An act for the relief of Fanny Faye Fox Cohen.
An act for the relief of Ronald Pike.
An act for the relief of Micheline Bourdon Russell.
An act for the relief of Rose Marie Bremner Middleton.
An act for the relief of Donalda Ruth MacCrim-mon Belak.
An act for the relief of Joseph Laureat Pierre Valois.
An act for the relief of Mary Patricia Happy Sullivan.
An act for the relief of Frances Ellison Schnebley Pattee.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Rapp Snider.
An act for the relief of Barbara Fay Howard Goulet.
An act for the relief of Bernice Clyke Brown.
An act for the relief of Harry Payne Ward.
An act for the relief of Roman Krastins.
An act for the relief of Sam Essner.
An act for the relief of Georges Henri Durocher.
An act for the relief of Pauline Jarowyj Krymlak.
An act for the relief of Florence Rhoda Cohen Denbow.
An act respecting the Territorial Lands Act.
An act to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.
An act to incorporate the Windsor Harbour Commissioners.	_	,	„
An act to amend The Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act.
An act respecting Progressive Insurance Company of Canada.
An act respecting The Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec.
An act for the Regulation and Control of Agricultural Fertilizers.
An act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An act to amend the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956.
An act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.	.
act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories
act to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance
act to amend the Excise Tax Act. act to amend the Income Tax Act. act to amend the Customs Tariff, act to amend the Excise Act. act to amend the Dominion Succession Duty
act to implement the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals.
An
Act.
An
Act.
An
An
An
An
An
Act.
An
An act to amend the Judges Act.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System during the calendar year 1957, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act to Authorize Contributions by Canada in respect of Programs Administered by the Provinces, Providing Hospital Insurance and Laboratory and Other Services in Aid of Diagnosis.
An	act	to	amend the Agricultural	Products
Marketing Act.
An act to amend the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946.
An	act	to	implement	an	agreement	between
Canada and the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
An	act	to	implement	an	agreement	between
Canada and the Union of South Africa for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
An	act	to	implement	an	agreement	between
Canada and the Union of South Africa for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to death duties.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following bills:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.
To which bills I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To these bills the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Deputy Governor General, did thereupon say:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks her loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to these bills.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the fifth session of the twenty-second parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The unstable situation in the Middle East has continued to give concern to Canadians throughout the session which I now bring to a close.
My government has sought both inside and outside the United Nations to play a constructive part with a view to reducing the risk of renewed hostilities between Israel and Egypt; to facilitating the early clearance and reopening of the Suez canal, which is so important to the waterborne commerce of our friends in Europe and Asia; and, through Canada's participation in the United Nations emergency force, to establishing conditions conducive to a long-term solution of the political problems of that area.
In March, discussions were held between my Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the

United Kingdom at Bermuda which dealt with a wide range of matters of international concern and in particular with questions of primary interest to Canada and the United Kingdom. The possibility of a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers early this summer was also discussed.
The emergence of the former colony of the gold coast into full commonwealth membership as the independent state of Ghana was welcomed by all Canadians as a further confirmation of the value and the adaptability of our free association of sovereign states linked by common interests and common loyalties. One of my ministers represented Canada at the inaugural ceremonies.
During the present session useful discussions were also held with the Prime Minister of France who addressed a special joint meeting of both houses of parliament.
Canada's development is proceeding at such a pace that it continues to place a strain on our human, material and financial resources. In order to hold inflationary tendencies in check, my ministers have urged that governments and private enterprise exercise restraint in their expansion projects.
A special committee of the Senate has begun a comprehensive investigation of the use of our land resources to contribute more effectively to the improvement of agricultural production and the incomes of those engaged in it.
The report of the royal commission on economic prospects has been laid before you. In accordance with its recommendation that special consideration be given to assisting the economies of the Atlantic provinces, the government has announced its intention of undertaking a detailed examination of transportation conditions in that area. In the meantime, increases in the payments under the Maritimes Freight Rates Act have been authorized. An offer has been made to construct inter-connection facilities between the electricity systems of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and to build and operate large thermo-electric plants in the Atlantic area to meet at the lowest possible cost the power requirements of growth and industrial development in that region. The recent adjustment in the tariff on potatoes should also have a favourable influence on its economy and on the economy of other farming areas.
A royal commission has been established to review the financial position of the province of Newfoundland in accordance with the terms of union of that province with Canada.
The report of the royal commission on radio and television broadcasting has been completed and presented for your consideration.
The brutal suppression of the Hungarian people by the armed forces of the Soviet union served to emphasize the continued need for the greatest possible degree of unanimity of purpose among the nations of the free world and the importance of maintaining an adequate system of collective defence.
My ministers continue to believe that our position in the commonwealth and firm support of the United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are essential contributions to the advancement of our aim of preserving peace and promoting prosperity throughout the world.
In the course of the present session you have approved important items of legislation of lasting benefit to the Canadian people.
You have authorized the government to enter into agreements with the provinces for the estab-
Prorogation of Parliament lishment of a nation-wide system of insurance programs for hospital care and diagnostic services. This legislation constitutes an important step forward in helping to improve the standard of health for the Canadian population and in relieving individual citizens from the worrisome burdens of large hospital bills.
You have approved legislation for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences. Undoubtedly, both the fund for scholarships and grants and the fund for assistance to universities for capital expansion projects will accelerate the cultural and intellectual growth of the nation.
To the same end the annual federal grants for universities have been doubled.
Provision has been made to assist the transportation to Canada of Hungarian refugees. Special arrangements have also been made for the movement of large numbers of British, French and other immigrants to this country.
In furtherance of the government's policy to maintain a high standard of social welfare in this country, increases are being made in the scale of payments to veterans under the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, as well as payments under the Family Allowances Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act.
You have approved a measure authorizing the payment of the equivalent of full taxes on federal property in all municipalities where such property receives normal municipal services.
You have approved legislation authorizing the continuance of the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency for western wheat, oats and barley. You have also enacted amendments to the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, as well as a measure extending the scope and provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Other measures enacted during this session included the Pacific Salmon Fisheries Convention Act, the Pacific Fur Seals Convention Act, the Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act, the Fertilizers Act, and amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act, the Territorial Lands Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act, the Export Credits Insurance Act, the Judges Act, the Exchequer Court Act, the Quebec Savings Banks Act, the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for making provision for the public service during the period required for the holding of a general election and the assembling of a new parliament.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
Let me give expression to our humble gratitude for the great blessings which Divine Providence has bestowed upon us and upon our beloved country. May He continue to guide us as we work together to maintain and secure the peace, prosperity and wellbeing we now enjoy.
This concluded the fifth session of the twenty-second parliament.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Nowlan: 1.	During the calendar year 1956, how many passengers, how many automobiles, how many tons of freight, were transported by the ferry William Carson, from (a) Nova Scotia to Newfoundland: (b) Newfoundland to Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the total amount of money paid out during the calendar year 1956, for the operation, maintenance and servicing of the said William Carsonl
Answer	by:	Mr.	Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
The	Canadian	National Railways advise
as follows:
1.	(a) Passengers and automobiles-nil.
Tons	of	freight-Nova Scotia to
Newfoundland-48,671.
(b) Passengers and automobiles-nil. Tons	of	freight-Newfoundland to
Nova Scotia-4,558.
2.	$1,233,660.


TELEGRAPH LINE, MEADOW LAKE-LA LOCHE, SASK.
Mr. Nicholson: 1.	Was the operation of the Department of Transport telegraph line from Meadow Lake to La Loche, Saskatchewan, discontinued?
2.	If so, on what date and for what reason?
3.	What arrangements, if any, were made to take care of communication from that area of Saskatchewan?
4.	How many telegraphers were employed in the operation of this line?
5.	How many of the telegraphers were laid off when the line ceased operation?
6.	How many days advance notice were given these persons that the line would be discontinued and they would be laid off?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	Yes.
2.	July 1, 1956. Conclusion of satisfactory arrangements with the Saskatchewan government telephones for provision of a communication service in the area served by the telegraph line in question.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Pour-one of whom had been granted one year's extension.
5.	Three released (one 66 years of age and one superannuated).
6.	Three weeks' notice and, in addition, payment for retiring leave earned was made.


WHARF, WEYMOUTH NORTH, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-: Yarmouth-Clare):
1.	Have steps been taken by the Department of Public Works to build an extension to the wharf at Weymouth North, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what will be the length and width of the extension?
3.	What will be its location with respect to the present structure?
4.	When will tenders be called?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourget, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Yes.
2.	The length will be 100 feet and the width 40 feet.
3.	The extension will be built from the northwest end of the present structure.
4.	Early in May, 1957.



END OF SESSION


[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 18, 1957